1951-06-22

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 394, for the relief of Marie Elizabeth Rose Ange Cousineau Brousseau. - Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister whether the order paper as it stands at present contains all the legislation that we shall be asked to deal with during this part of the session?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I think there are still one or two bills which are now before the other place and which may be sent over here in the course of the day. But with that reservation I think that the order paper covers everything that the house will be asked to deal with, and perhaps more, before it is suggested that we adjourn.


Gordon Graydon: There may be a surplus.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
535. Departmental administration, $2,208,070.
Mr. Brooks:: Before this item carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on veterans affairs. I am sure that all hon. members realize that the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs are probably the most important estimates we have coming before the committee, and the estimates which have most to do with the lives of a great many of our people.
At the outset I should like to say that I was pleased indeed that the veterans affairs committee was set up this session. On many occasions I have advocated that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs in this house, and I am more convinced than ever that this is necessary. The committee had twelve meetings; many important matters
were brought before it, and many suggestions were made for improvements in veterans legislation.
In my opinion the problem of veterans, as it exists today, was just touched on by the committee. Certainly there was a feeling in the committee that our work was not finished. When we came here at the beginning of this session it was obvious to most hon. members that there were certain problems relating to veterans affairs which must have attention, and I am satisfied that many hon. members, and most people in the country, felt that certain matters would be discussed and dealt with. The fact that conditions are changing so rapidly in the country, that the plight of the veteran is changing perhaps more than that of any other class of people, made us realize this fact.
Referring to the desirability of having a permanent veterans affairs committee, I might say that to my knowledge since veterans affairs were first discussed in the house there have been about eighteen veterans affairs committees. Meetings of those committees were held at a time when veterans affairs were perhaps not the serious problem that they are today. Before 1939 and 1940 we had just the veterans of world war I to deal with. Now we have the problem not only of the veterans of world war I-and then-problems are becoming more serious every year as they increase in age-but also of the returned veterans of world war II, and added to those we now have the problems of the men who are serving in the Korean theatre of war.
We had hoped that in the veterans affairs committee the two main problems concerning veterans of today, namely, an increase in the basic rate of pension, and an increase in war veterans allowances, would be discussed. Unfortunately that was not the case. We were not placed in a position to deal with these two very important problems.
Canada is becoming very social-conscious in her welfare legislation. Yesterday we dealt with the matter of old age pensions, and I am sure we are all pleased indeed that this problem is receiving so much attention, and that provisions are being made for more adequate treatment of the old people of this country. We have also heard many times in this house requests for an increase in the cost of living bonus for

Supply-Veterans Affairs civil servants and other employees. We realize that the present wages which they receive are not adequate. We have also noted that there have been great increases in wages in different kinds of employment throughout the country. We also realize that our money is greatly depreciated, to the extent that a dollar which ten or twelve years ago would buy a dollar's worth of goods, today will do little better than buy fifty per cent of that amount on the same basis. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, that the lot of the pensioner and the veteran in Canada today is not a very pleasant one. For this reason we in the committee felt-at least some of us-that these matters should receive the first consideration of the veterans affairs committee.
I personally was sorry and disappointed that no increase was made in the basic rate of pension this year. I was also sorry and disappointed that the matter of war veterans allowance was not considered by the veterans affairs committee, and that this serious problem was in no way discussed. I might ask, what alternative to this problem is the government offering the veteran? It is this. We have before us item 650 in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance. As hon. members know, it was under long discussion in the veterans affairs committee, and received severe criticism. It was also a matter which was severely criticized not only by the veterans of the veterans affairs committees, but by all veterans organizations across Canada. There was not one veterans organization which appeared before the veterans affairs committee which gave its approval of this item as solving the basic problem of the veterans at this time. Perhaps I might just read the item 650 to which I am referring. It is as follows:
650. To provide financial assistance after the thirty-first of May, 1951, in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council, to unemployable veterans who are in receipt of pension under the Pension Act for a disability which is a major factor contributing to their unemployability, $2,000,000.
I might say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that the word "major" was struck out. The item was amended to that extent, and it should read:
. . . for a disability which is a factor contributing to their unemployability.
This was a wise amendment, and received the unanimous approval of the veterans of the committee. When one reads this item it may sound as if it were not very much astray on the face of it, since it purports to be of help to veterans who are unemployable. It gives it to pensioners, single men who have thirty-five per cent disability and who are

unemployable, and married pensioners with forty-five per cent disability and unemployable.
According to the deputy minister of veterans affairs, some 6,000 pensioners will be benefited in Canada. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is 6,000 out of 162,000 veterans receiving pensions.
As I said a few moments ago, the different veterans organizations throughout Canada appeared before the veterans committee, and they were in accord in their objection to this unemployable allowance. They did not approve this way of handling their problems. For the benefit of the committee I should like to read some of the statements which were made by the leaders of these different organizations. Group Captain Alfred Watts, president of the Canadian Legion, said at page 78 of the proceedings of the committee:
If the proposed supplementary allowances were to be in addition to an adequate pension, they might be worthy of careful study. As has been pointed out, often times, under certain local conditions where physical fitness is a prerequisite for employment, such as in the coal mines or steel works of Cape Breton, a comparatively minor physical disability may result in unemployability. In such a case the proposed legislation might serve a very real need. But if this legislation is proposed in lieu of an adequate pension, as it is, then it is pernicious in the extreme.
Dr. Lumsden, vice-president of the Canadian Legion, a man who has made a very thorough study of Canadian problems and pension legislation, and who is considered throughout Canada as an authority on this matter, had this to say, as set out at page 83 of our proceedings:
It should be obvious that once you repudiate the cost of living and wage indices as norms and make relief contingent on need, then you have in fact introduced the means test into the pension legislation. That is inescapable. The Minister of D.V.A. insists that this supplementary allowance for unemployable veterans does not introduce a means test in the pension. But we would be false to our responsibility as a veterans organization if we did not emphatically assure him that if the total disability pensioner must establish unemployability before he receives a minimal subsistence allowance then it certainly will be regarded as a means test and resented as such. As you see, this introduces a principle of need into the pension system which has been foreign to the Canadian practice and tradition, but it does seem to reflect the practice of Great Britain and some other commonwealth countries, a practice which fortunately Canada up to the present has had foresight enough to avoid.
One of the other outstanding organizations, as hon. members know, is the National Council of Veterans in Canada. Their president, Major A. J. Wickens, an outstanding lawyer and a man who has given years of study to veterans affairs and problems, said this, in presenting his brief to the veterans affairs committee:
We have enough trouble now making veterans understand the classifications that already exist, and

we can see no reason why the good features of this unemployability proposal cannot be engrafted upon the war veterans allowance and war veterans allowance extended to include those for whom this unemployability proposal has been offered. On behalf of those for whom I am speaking and with whom I am associated I wish to say that we appreciate all the thought and consideration and the intention to do something for the welfare of the veterans which lies behind this scheme, but one cannot always accept good intention for the act, and we firmly believe that a greater amount of good can be obtained by an extension of war veterans allowance rather than by the institution of that new provision of unemployability benefit.
My last quotation will be from the president of the War Amputations Association, Rev. S. E. Lambert, who has appeared before the veterans affairs committees for the last twenty or twenty-five years, and whose record and reputation and sympathy for war veterans is well known throughout the country. Speaking with respect to item 650, he said:
If you want to make them all paupers, go ahead. We do not like it; we are not approving of it anyway. That is how the amps feel about it. We are talking to you about fighting men, about men who have been in contact with the enemy in two wars and now in three wars, and I feel somehow that Canada owes them a great deal more than she thinks she does.
There were other outstanding men who expressed the same view. Among these was Colonel Eddie Baker, who, as we know, is a grand veteran who has looked after the interests of blind veterans throughout Canada since the first war. I believe what I have placed on Hansard expresses the views not only of the different veteran organizations, but also of right-thinking people from one end of Canada to the other.
It will be noted that their first point of objection was that a new principle is introduced into pensions in this country, the principle of need instead of right. In the past a pension received has been a pension as of right. There was no question as to financial standing, no question whether a man was employable or unemployable. If he had suffered disability overseas, he received a pension according to the percentage of his disability.
We were told in committee that this principle of unemployable allowance had been introduced in England, New Zealand and Australia. I believe that was said more or less to establish the precedent for introducing it in Canada. My understanding is that the principle is very unpopular in New Zealand today, and unpopular also in England. Time and time again we have boasted that our pension legislation is better than that of England or New Zealand or any other country. We have never held up the veterans legislation of those countries as an example we should follow. It is only in this instance
Supply-Veterans Affairs that we take legislation which has proved to be unpopular and offer it as something to be followed in Canada.
We know that after two world wars Great Britain was bled white, and her financial position was at a very low ebb. We know that in the first world war she lost almost a million men, and that her pension bills were tremendous. In the second world war it was the same thing. The revenues of the country had sunk to a very low point. What England perhaps was compelled to do in the circumstances of that time is certainly nothing that should be held up here as an example of what we should do.
Since pensions were first introduced there have been two outstanding principles. First was the matter of entitlement, where there must be proof of disability and proof that the disability was due to war service. The definition as I remember it, given by one of the witnesses, was the loss of will or power to do a normal or physical act. That was the basis for entitlement. After entitlement was established, two norms were set up as the basis for pension. The first was the wages of labour, the wage of the ordinary labourer at the time. The second was the cost of living. It made no difference whether a man was a lawyer, a minister, or a ditch digger; if he was assessed at a certain disability, that disability was based upon the normal average wage of labour at that time.
Pensions were never considered as handouts to veterans. Once entitlement was established, they were considered as an absolute right. It was considered that the veteran had earned his pension, having suffered some disability. The present unemployability allowance does not recognize compensation for suffering as the basis for pension. It does not recognize the loss of enjoyment of life which the original pensions did recognize. If a young man lost an arm or a leg he was unable to join in sports or in the normal activities that are open to an ordinary man. He was given some compensation. It is only the man who is unemployable who is entitled to an increase in allowance. The cost of living has gone up nearly 190 or 200 per cent, and nothing is being done to increase pensions.
There are certain anomalies in this legislation. If a millionaire is unemployable, he would come under this item 650, but a man who was receiving a pension of $35 from some other source would not be eligible. If a veteran is 70 years of age or over and has accepted an old age pension, he would not get the unemployable allowance.
I have spoken to different veterans organizations throughout the country and they tell me that this provision is going to be difficult

Supply-Veterans Affairs to administer. For instance, it will be hard to say whether a farmer who is unable to carry on farm work is unemployable when he might be able to operate an elevator or do other kinds of work if he were in the town. The question may be asked: How can this matter be handled? I think we all realize that something should be done for the many thousands of veterans who are unemployable. It was suggested by the veterans organizations and by members of the committee that there should be an increase in the basic rate of pension. Then it was suggested, in the statements which I quoted, that there should be a supplemental increase in the war veterans allowance. The matter could have been handled in that way with justice to all veterans.
I should like to repeat what I said at the outset, that the terms of reference to the committee were too narrow. We were circumscribed and handicapped from the beginning; we could not consider matters which we felt should be considered. For instance, we could1 not consider the war veterans allowance. I moved in the house to amend the terms of reference to have this included, but my motion was voted down. During the sittings of the committee we asked repeatedly that the terms of reference be returned to the house and enlarged to include the basic rate of pension.
There are other matters before the committee with which we agreed. We agreed that there should be an increase in the allowances to widows and to children. Those matters were covered by amendments to the Pension Act. Then there are other amendments respecting benefits to members of the Canadian forces which received unanimous support. The amendments suggested to the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act were agreeable, as were also the amendments suggested to the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act. All these matters were considered as being necessary for the welfare of the veteran and were approved by the committee as good legislation.
I want to conclude by repeating that it was disappointing indeed to the committee not to have an opportunity to deal with the two fundamental matters which are concerning veterans across Canada today. The first was an increase in the basic rate of pension, which is long overdue. It will be recalled that in 1948 there was an increase of twenty-five per cent in the basic rate which was granted because of the increased cost of living. There was no question of unemployability. I remember at that time they came before the committee offering ten per cent,


but that was rejected. Then they offered sixteen per cent, but that was unacceptable. Finally we agreed on a twenty-five per cent increase. As I say, nothing was said at that time about unemployability. The committee concentrated on the basis upon which pensions should be increased at that time, as they should now.
The other fundamental problem was that of veterans allowances. This also was not dealt with in the committee, and we did not even have an opportunity to discuss it.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on this important item concerning the minister and his staff before proceeding with some criticisms which I intend to make. First, I want to express my appreciation of the courtesy extended by the minister on several occasions and his interest in the veterans welfare. I appreciate also the courtesy extended by the parliamentary assistant and his work as chairman of the special committee on veterans affairs. While some of us often question his judgment on certain phases of veterans legislation, I think all members of the committee will say that he means well.
I wish also to express my appreciation of the work done by the senior officials, and their courtesy in attending to everything that was brought to their attention. Reference should be made also to the work of the departmental officials throughout the country. More and more I have had brought to my attention the good work done by the junior officials who travel across the country investigating various cases coming under the Pension Act, and the various pieces of veterans legislation. I have had several difficult cases brought to my attention in my constituency, and the officials have shown unusual patience and have gone to great lengths in attempting to solve, to the advantage of the veterans or dependents concerned, the problems that were brought to their attention.
Having said that, I must now strike a somewhat different note. In 1948 the cost of living index stood at 155-0. It will be remembered that at that time legislation was passed to increase the basic rate of pension twenty-five per cent. That increase was generally acceptable to members of the house and to the veterans of Canada. It was given on the general understanding that the cost of living index was going to level off. Although that twenty-five per cent increase was not sufficient when considered in relation to the wages being paid and the cost of living at that time as against the time when the pension was made permanent, it was considered to be generally satisfactory.

But conditions have changed for the pensioners of Canada. By November of last year the cost of living index had reached 170-7. That increase resulted in representatives of the major veterans organizations making representations to the federal cabinet, and later to the special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, urging a 33J per cent increase in the basic rate of disability pensions. On any sound calculation no one can deny that that was not a reasonable and sound approach to the whole problem. Even 33s per cent would not completely compensate pensioners for the increased cost of living or bring their pension compensation into proper relationship with the cost of living and the wage structure of the country.
Representations were made by the Canadian Legion to the cabinet on November 10. Representations were also made by the national council of veterans. Both these organizations later made complete proposals to the special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs. I think it was the general opinion of members of the committee that they established a very good case and that the witnesses answered in a most satisfactory manner the questions put to them by members of the committee. I suppose this departure in policy by the government in providing for supplementary unemployability allowance for approximately 6,000 of the 160,000 pensioners has caused more difference of opinion among veteran members of the committee than has ever arisen before in the life of the parliamentary committees on veterans affairs. When the government's proposals were made known there was an immediate reaction from the veterans organizations and veterans generally. That was evidenced by the representations made by their national representatives, and it was evidenced by the letters and telegrams received from branches all across Canada by members of this house.
So far as my constituency is concerned, I received correspondence and telegrams from every Canadian Legion branch in the constituency, supporting their national officers and the national council of veterans in their unified request for an extension of the terms of reference of the committee to permit the committee to give consideration to an increase in the basic rate of pension, and to the needs of those receiving the war veterans allowance. There is no question about that. There is no doubt that there was a Canadawide demand on the part of the veterans. A good many members of the committee supported the proposals of the veterans organizations, because we considered they were sound and just.
Supply-Veterans Affairs I am sure if government members will review the history of the representations made by veterans organizations in Canada they will admit that their requests have always been temperate, sound, and realistically related to the circumstances of the time. We in this group are very much opposed to this departure from the established practice of pensions in Canada, namely, the proposal to pay an unemployability allowance to certain disability pensioners. That practice was established as a result of legislation, as a result of co-operation between veterans organizations, other persons in Canada interested in veterans problems, and the government. We are very sorry indeed to see the government depart from the basic principle which has been so generally accepted, because it is considered fair by the great majority of the Canadian people.
We in this group oppose the proposal first of all because of the violation of the accepted pension principle established in Canada. Second, we oppose it because this new unemployability allowance-I see the hon. member for Spadina watching me like a hawk-provides a means test. There is no question about that. First of all, the veteran has to pass a medical test. He has to prove that his condition is such that he comes within the ambit of this provision. In addition, he has to pass an unemployability test, some sort of welfare test. He has to prove he cannot obtain employment, or is unable to work. He also has to pass a financial test. There is no question about that, because, as was evidenced by the answers of the officials to questions by members of the committee, everyone who makes application must be asked certain questions.
As the hon. member for Royal said, one man could have a million dollars in the bank and receive the supplementary allowance, and another could be denied it if he was receiving $35 a month by way of superannuation or industrial pension. Therefore every applicant for the allowance must be asked the question: Have you a superannuation allowance, or have you an industrial pension? If he has either of these, then according to the explanation given by the officials the pensioner in question would not receive the unemployability allowance. That is a financial test. We object very strongly to that principle being introduced into the question of assisting disability pensioners.
In the third place, we cannot agree that the war casualties of Canada, who are the responsibility of the dominion government, should be treated in any different manner
4488	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs from the civilian casualties of Canada. No one ever heard of a workmen's compensation board in any province suggesting that a civilian casualty should be paid a certain rate of pension and then, if he was in difficult circumstances, that he should receive an allowance as the result of a triple means test. All civilian casualties are compensated according to the rate of their disability under the terms of the legislation in effect in the province in question. We believe that our war casualties should receive at least the same treatment by way of compensation for their disabilities as that accorded civilian casualties.
As I said before, there has been strong opposition to this proposal from the veterans organizations. The apposition not only comes from the national officers, but, without doubt, as expressed in recent provincial conventions and through the many telegrams and letters received, I presume, by all members of the house, from the rank and file of the veterans organizations in Canada.
I might say further that I have received evidence from my constituency that there are others not directly connected with veterans organizations who think that the government is taking a wrong step in introducing this new principle. In order to indicate the depth of feeling on this question on the part of members of the Canadian Legion, I wish to quote briefly from the June issue of The Legionary. The Legionary is the national organ of the Canadian Legion, and no one questions the fact that the editorials written in the monthly issues represent the considered opinion and policy of the Canadian Legion. In the June issue there is the following:
It now remains to be seen whether the committee, composed entirely of ex-service M.P.'s . . . will accept or reject the government's bill. If they reject it, as the legion hopes they will, the government may reconsider the whole matter . . .
I could go on at greater length, but I think that editorial distinctly reflects the opinion of the Canadian Legion with respect to this legislation, and I think that in this case the government has made a most unfortunate mistake. We believe, as the hon. member for Royal mentioned, that the good features of this proposal should be incorporated in the War Veterans Allowance Act so that there would be an opportunity in that way to assist those who require a special form of assistance. By doing that we would leave intact the principle of paying disability pensioners on a strictly compensation basis.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, we in this group are very sorry that the terms of reference of the committee were so narrow 

as not to permit the discussion of the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. It is obvious that there are many veterans and their dependents in Canada who are now receiving an allowance under the terms of that excellent act who should receive some consideration. I am sure all members of this committee have met cases in which people on war veterans allowance are finding it most difficult to exist under present circumstances, particularly those who are unable to supplement their earnings in any way, or have, shall I say, no other minor source of income. We in this group regret very much that the terms of reference were not wider. A number of the members of the special committee did try to get the terms broadened, as suggested by the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans, but we w'ere not successful.
In passing I might say that whether we agreed or disagreed on the special committee, I am quite sure that all the members of that committee, who are all veterans, are concerned about veterans problems and their welfare. There is a keen difference of opinion largely based on inexperience. Some members really believe that this proposal will be satisfactory and will bring some advantage to some pensioners. We who object to the proposal believe it is an unfortunate departure from Canadian practice and will create new difficulties in the administration of Canadian pension legislation.
In conclusion, may I say that we urge the government to give further consideration to the representations of the veterans organizations in Canada concerning this most important question, and to give consideration to their proposal with respect to an increase of 33J per cent in the basic rate of pension, as well as to the various and obvious needs of thousands in Canada who are receiving allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. Quelch:: At the outset I should like to say how much I appreciate the consideration that I have received from the various senior officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs in dealing with cases I have brought before them, especially those concerning the Veterans Land Act, because I am in touch with that very often. I am afraid that I cannot speak with any enthusiasm about the special committee that was set up to study veterans affairs. I was greatly disappointed in the work of that committee. In my opinion the reason the committee failed to execute the kind of work it should have executed is twofold. First of all, the terms of reference were limited to such an extent that it was impossible for the committee to take the action it should have been able to take.

Second, I think the failure was due-I do not want to be misunderstood'-in part to the personnel of the committee. By that I mean to say that there was such an overwhelming majority of Liberals on the committee. Unfortunately a large percentage of those Liberals were members who were not familiar with the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Had they had more experience with that department, I believe they would have been prepared to take a different attitude on some of the issues that came before the committee.
When the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans presented their briefs before the committee, they made it very clear that they bitterly resented the fact that the terms of reference had been narrowed in the way they were. In that regard I need only quote one statement. I am quoting a statement by a man whom we all deeply respect, and that is Colonel Lambert, president of the "Amps". He generally speaks quite passionately, and I quote from page 111 of the report of the proceedings before the committee:
It has been my privilege on previous occasions to come here as dominion president of our organization ever since its inception, and for thirty-two years now, I have been the dominion president of the War Amps of Canada representing the sightless, the armless, the legless veterans of the first war, and' of the second war, and now of the third war, for we already have amputations from Korea. I came with mixed feelings today. It is always left to me to sort of make a passionate appeal on their behalf but I have lost heart to come here to talk to people who are supposed to be able to do the things that are necessary and when we come we find you are so restricted in your thinking that it is useless for us to say anything about it.
That feeling was evident throughout the briefs of the Canadian Legion and national council of veterans associations. Early in the deliberations of the committee, the member for Royal made an attempt to get the terms of reference extended. Unfortunately his motion was voted down. It is at that point I think the lack of experience had its effect. Had the members of that committee had more experience in the workings of the department they would have realized the committee should have had the power to deal with all veterans affairs. In the past, even when the terms of reference seemed to be narrow, they were sufficiently wide to enable us to deal with all matters, including war veterans allowance. Today one of the burning issues amongst veterans is the war veterans allowance, yet we could not even discuss it in this special committee.
At the start of the proceedings of this committee the Minister of Veterans Affairs made a statement, and either intentionally or unintentionally in that statement he left
Supply-Veterans Affairs a definite inference that item 650 in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance had been brought down as an alternative to an increase under the Pension Act. I say "either intentionally or unintentionally", and I am not going to argue that.
I am going to read what he said and let everyone judge whether or not that statement is correct. I quote from page 22 of the committee evidence:
Now, the item that is before you as a supplementary estimate implements the intention of the government to provide supplementary allowances for pensioners who are unemployable and whose pensionable disability is a major factor in their unemployability. As you know, representations were made to the department last autumn by the Canadian Legion and by the national council of veterans associations for an increase across the board in the basic rate of pension, and for various other measures of assistance to pensioners and dependents.
Now, after very careful consideration of the representations by responsible veterans organizations, and having made a survey of the situation ourselves, we came to the conclusion that the most pressing problem, or problems, rather, were those of pensioners who were unable to work and who had to consider their pensions, at whatever rate it might have been, as their sole source of income; and similarly that there was hardship in the cases of widows with small children who because of the care they had to give to their children were unable to supplement their pension income.
Consequently the government brought down item 650 instead of increasing that basic rate of pension as had been requested by the major veterans organizations of this dominion. After the minister had made his speech the veterans organizations, in presenting their briefs, made it very clear that they rejected item 650 as an alternative to an increase in the pension.
Some statements have been quoted from the brief. I want to quote a few more, but I shall be careful not to refer to any that were quoted previously in the discussion.
When the hon. member for Royal spoke, he quoted what the president of the Canadian Legion had stated. I want to carry on from where the hon. member for Royal left off in the statement by Mr. Watts, who is president of the Canadian Legion. I quote from page 78 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee. The hon. member for Royal quoted Mr. Watts as criticizing item 650. Mr. Watts went on to say:
Therefore, the Canadian Legion cannot be satisfied with the legislation before this committee. There are no recommendations for improvement in the basic rate of pensions, nor is there any mention at all of war veterans allowance, the two principal problems affecting veterans today. Worse still, the supplementary estimate of $2 million now before you would alter the tried and proven pension policy in a manner not desirable to the veteran nor, we suggest, to the Canadian public.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Then the president of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, at page 106, had this to say:
We support, gentlemen, as I have told you, the Canadian Legion protest about the unemployability grant-not entirely for the reasons expressed by the Canadian Legion in their brief.
Then a little later he goes on to say:
. . . but as far as we are concerned, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the practical way to deal with the matter would be to take those good things that are desirable in this scheme and engraft them upon the war veterans allowance scheme and let us have one scheme of war veterans allowances throughout which the test of eligibility will be the same. I am speaking of what is known generally as the means test.
Turning to the next page, we find that he stated:
We feel that this unemployability grant is a mistake. It is another classification and will only make things worse.
Colonel Lambert, to whom I have already referred, had this to say as reported at page 111 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee:
You bring in this supplementary allowance; it is not a bill but it is some kind of estimate, and we consider this as another contribution to the poverty of the veterans, I would say, and we do not like that.
The hon. member for Kootenay West quoted the paragraph preceding the one quoted from The Legionary. I want to quote the paragraph preceding the one quoted by the hon. member for Kootenay West. It is contained in an editorial entitled "A Burning Issue," and it reads as follows:
The Canadian Legion has taken sharp issue with the government. Its brief to the House of Commons committee on veterans affairs termed the proposed legislation "retrograde, alarming, dangerous and pernicious," and offered sound reasons to prove it. Fully documented with a wealth of relevant statistics, no more impressive brief has ever been submitted by the Legion to a parliamentary committee, and it was presented with great conviction and deep sincerity by the two top men of the organization, Alfred Watts, the dominion president, and Dr. Lumsden, the dominion first vice-president.
Then he goes on to say, as quoted by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that they hope that the committee will reject item 650.
I believe these quotations have been sufficient to prove my contention that the veterans organizations not only resent but oppose the introduction of item 650. The Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans organizations presented a brief to the government and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and in that brief they asked for an increase in the basic rate of disability pension, and also an increase in the amount of the war veterans allowance; but as we know now, the government did not take any action at that time. At the start of this session, however, they set up a special committee. Then, strangely

enough, after setting up the committee they denied them the right to investigate the very things that the Legion and the national council of veterans organizations had asked for. Those two associations had asked for an increase in the basic rate of disability pension and an increase in the war veterans allowance. The government sets up a committee and then narrows the terms of reference to such a point that the committee cannot even give consideration to the request of these major veterans organizations.
I now want to say a few words with regard to item 650. There are some good things in it. The veterans organizations have therefore suggested that the good things in it should be grafted on to the War Veterans Allowance Act. It provides for an increase in the pension of a disability pensioner whose disability is less than 35 per cent, if he is single and less than 45 per cent if he is married, provided he is unemployable and is not in receipt of the old age pension or any other form of retirement allowance. That being the case, it definitely contains a form of a means test; unless you are going to suggest that a veteran works for the fun of it. After all, when a man works, he does so in order to try to improve his means of livelihood. Yet if a man is working to improve his means of livelihood, he is denied any benefits under item 650. Furthermore, if he is receiving any benefits through the old age pension or through any other form of retirement allowance, he cannot receive any benefit from item 650. So it is definitely a form of a means test. That is a thing that these veterans organizations bitterly resent. They do not want that in any way, shape or form tied in with the idea of an increase in the basic rate of pension.
Furthermore, I would think it is a highly undesirable form of means test, for this reason. As was pointed out by the previous two speakers, a man may be receiving an income of $3,000 a year from investment; yet he can obtain benefits under item 650 so long as he is not employed. But if he is doing some little job for which he is receiving $30 a month, a total of $360 a year, for his work, he is not entitled to any consideration under item 650. The man receiving $3,000 a year from investments can get benefits under that item, but the man who is working and earning a small income like $360 a year is not entitled to any benefits at all. Therefore I say it is a most undesirable form of means test. It is an extremely mean form.
I think that the veterans organizations fear that this is the first step towards the introduction of an employability test in the Pension Act. There again I would say that, when you give consideration to the speech that was made

by the Minister of Veterans Affairs at the opening sitting of the committee, you could easily come to that conclusion. I want to quote what the minister had to say in that regard. This is to be found at page 23 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee:
Now, it seems to us there is no question that the present day idea of the working and earning capacity of those who are victims of the most serious disabilities is very different from what it was a few years ago, certainly from what it was ten, twenty and thirty years ago; and it is true that no longer is the man, for instance, who has lost a leg or who has lost an arm considered as being out of the labour market. No longer do people hold the belief that his earning capacity is necessarily circumscribed by his physical disability.
With that idea in mind, one can quite understand why the government brought down item 650, only allowing an increase in the pension provided that a man is unemployable. Naturally the fear is aroused in the minds of the members of the various veterans organizations that in the not too far distant future the government may decide to apply that same test to the whole of the pension legislation and say that any man who is employable and is receiving an income, we will say, of so many thousand dollars a year will not be entitled to a pension under the act because his disability apparently is not depriving him of the ability to earn a living. It is always the first step in an undesirable direction that you have to guard against and try to stop, because once you proceed in a certain direction it is not easy to turn around, and the Canadian Legion makes some caustic remark on that very point.
In 1948 the veterans committee, which in my opinion was one of the best veterans committees we have ever had, dealt with the question of war veterans allowance and with the basic rate of pension. At that time the government had agreed to only a ten per cent increase. Under pressure, they increased it to sixteen per cent, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs told the committee that that was as far as it would go. The committee of that day were men experienced in veterans affairs, and they were not satisfied with the minister's statement that the government would go only as far as sixteen per cent. They continued on for many days and finally the government agreed to increase the basic rate of pension to twenty-five per cent instead of sixteen per cent. That brought the disability pension for one hundred per cent disabled veterans, single, up to $94. The veterans organizations of that day were asking up to $100 a month. I remember that at that time I received many telegrams from boards of trade in my province urging that the basic rate for 100 per cent pensioners be $100 a month. That was
Supply-Veterans Affairs in 1948. Since then there has been an increase in the cost of living of another 27 points. That being the case, if it was considered by boards of trade and veterans organizations that the increase at that time was not sufficient to take care of the situation as it was in 1948, how much more is there need for an increase in the basic rate of pension today when the cost of living has risen another 27 points? Instead of that the government brings down an item merely to provide relief-you might call it some form of relief-to those veterans who are unemployable.
Some members of the committee said: Well, after all, we want to help the man who is in the greatest distress. We want to help the man down at the bottom. Item 650 does not provide any help whatsoever for the man who is down at the bottom, because item 650 will not provide any help for a disability pensioner whose pension disability is less than thirty-five per cent if he is single and forty-five per cent if he is married. There are many men today who are one hundred per cent disabled and bedridden, but whose disability classification is perhaps less than thirty-five per cent, because that disability was not due to war services. Therefore that man today is dependent upon the war veterans allowance, and all he is getting is $40 a month, or perhaps he is getting the supplementary $10 which makes it $50. If he is married he gets $70 a month. These are the men who need help today. But the committee was not even allowed to consider their case.
I think the government made a very serious mistake when they denied the committee the right to investigate the position of these married men who are living on a pitiable $70 a month. No one in this house would argue for one minute that a married man with a wife to support could possibly live on $70 a month in any state of decency. I do not think they could even exist. In most cases I think you will find that where a man and wife are living on $70 a month they are getting supplementary help from other directions. It is true they can get the additional $10 from the government in the form of what might be called relief.
I hope I have made it clear why we in the opposition in the committee oppose item 650. We look upon it as a retrograde step. We look upon it as the first step down the road which will make the pensions subject to a means test. If anybody doubts that, let him read once more what the Minister of Veterans Affairs said in the committee, namely, that today there is a change of opinion and change of attitude regarding pensions. We no longer look upon their disability as being such as to prevent them from working. I think we

Supply-Veterans Affairs all realize, Mr. Chairman, that no amount of money can ever compensate a man for the loss of a limb. Men who have lost their arms or legs can never really be compensated with money. But the least we can do is to give them adequate compensation. That is what the pension is. Give them compensation for their loss of ability to do what any other human being can do who has all his limbs. It is not merely a question of earning a living. The pensioner has to live with that disability twenty-four hours a day. Even though he may be able to earn a living in spite of the disability, he cannot enjoy life in the normal way that anybody else does who has not lost limbs. Therefore I think we are taking a backward step when we make any increase in the pension subject to an employability test.
On the question of war veterans allowance, which we have not had the opportunity to discuss, but which no doubt I shall have something more to say about when we come to that item, I should like to say this. There is a means test in the war veterans allowance. The legislation being what it is, I think most of us appreciate that so long as there is a means test in the old age pension legislation, there has to be one on the war veterans allowance, because after all, the war veterans allowance was paid on the principle that the pensioner was pre-aged ten years. We are therefore paying the old age pension at the age of 60 instead of 70. We have modified that, or rather widened it so that we paid the allowance to a veteran who was unable to work and who had seen service in a theatre of war.
That being the case, it is only natural that the means test in the war veterans allowance should be the same as in the old age pension. Now that we are removing the means test from the old age pension legislation, I trust that legislation will be brought down to remove the means test from the war veterans allowance. I do not think it is satisfactory to say that once a veteran reaches the age of 70 he should stop getting war veterans allowance and start getting the old age pension. I think that when a man has been receiving the war veterans allowance for several years he would prefer to continue receiving the war veterans allowance. If the government is going to remove the means test from old age pensions I can see no reason why it should not be prepared to remove it from the war veterans allowance. At the age of 65 you have a different situation. The means test on the war veterans allowance at 65 should also be removed.
It may be argued, of course, that the veteran at 65 can take the old age pension,

because I understand the means test is going to be modified. But let us not forget that today the war veterans allowance is paid as a federal responsibility. If you say to the war veteran: You can take the old age pension at 65, you are forcing the provinces to pay fifty per cent of the cost. In other words, the federal government is trying to pass on to the provinces part of its responsibility, and I think that would be a mistake.
But what I really started to say was this. While there is a means test in the war veterans allowance, and in the past there may have been some justification for it, I do think that once a veteran gets to a certain age we should close our eyes to the means test. In my constituency there is a veteran who is over eighty years of age and who is blind. He could not live on the war veterans allowance. He has a farm, and he is getting around $300 a year rent for it-some years he does not get that. His wife does a little bit of work for the treasury branch. She gets paid commission on insurance that she sells, and on the accounts that she handles, and that brings her own income to around $350 a year. When that was reported at the end of the year they stopped that man's allowance and told these people that the allowance would not be granted again until that amount was repaid. To repay it was impossible, because the commissions are small, and on the amount that he is getting he could not possibly pay that indebtedness. So for two years he had no more veterans allowance. Then a further application was made, and they reinstated him in the war veterans allowance but deducted $10 a month for repayment of what he owed. Where the veteran is over eighty years of age, it seems to me that a small income of this kind should be called casual earnings. In this case, however, they were not willing to call it casual earnings-why, I do not know. I have taken the case up, but so far there has been no satisfactory settlement of it.
I hope the government will give consideration to the recommendation of the committee that there be an increase in the basic rate of disability pension. If an increase is made in the basic rate of pension, it would be all right in my opinion to adopt item 650. But it would be better to bring it in in connection with the War Veterans Allowance Act, so that there would not be left in anyone's mind the idea that this proposal was introduced for the purpose of instituting an employability test into pension legislation.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take long, because I do not intend to speak about any individual case. I have been a member of the veterans affairs committee since I first came here. Frankly it

was the only committee upon which I did not enjoy serving, because I do not think we accomplished anything. In my opinion the order of reference was not wide enough in the beginning and definitely it should have been widened at the request of some of us on the committee. However I was not prepared to vote against item 650. I will not go into all the details, because they have been covered by previous speakers, and no doubt will be covered again by others.
Probably the biggest trouble will be administration. I do not think the departmental officials who will be responsible for administration realize what they are up against. I hope every veteran now in receipt of thirty-five or forty-five per cent disability pension immediately puts in his application, because in my opinion it would be eight months before anything would be received. I am not saying that in any critical way, because I have great respect for the officials. However I do not think it is practicable so far as administration is concerned. It might be all right in the big cities, but not in the rural areas.
I do not think it is practicable for us to turn down the item, and I accept responsibility for voting for it, but I do so on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread. It certainly will help those greatly in need, if it is possible to administer it.
I suggest we should concentrate upon urging the government to have the basic rate of pension increased right across the board. I hope each individual member when he returns to his riding, we hope within the next ten days, will hear from his Legion and from other organizations in his riding, including his political association, advising him to use every influence he may have to bring this about.
I believe $22 million is involved in increasing the basic pension. Surely that does not enter into the picture. I do not believe there is a taxpayer in Canada who begrudges the veteran anything he gets. And $22 million-why, heavens above, we spend $22 million on some monstrosity of a building out here, and nothing is said about it. To say that the people of Canada could not afford $22 million just would not go down with the people in the constituency of Fraser Valley.
I do not think there is anything more we can do about it at this session. However I understand we are to come back in October, and I should hope that by that time members from various parts of the country would have been strongly advised within their own ridings and by their own people to use every possible influence with parliament in this
Supply-Veterans Affairs connection-and I have said "with parliament" because, after all, parliament is supreme.


Mr. Hodgson:: Where?


George Alexander Cruickshank: So long as we have the form of government we now have in Canada, parliament will be supreme-and I hope we always will have that democratic form of government. Whether we put it to work or not is our responsibility. I hope when we come back in October we shall be in a position to impress upon the government the fact that a revised basic rate of pension right across the board should be put into effect, and that a new committee should be set up. Certainly its order of reference should not be as limited as it was at the present session; if it is, then I shall have no desire to serve on it. This year in my opinion the sittings of the committee were ninety per cent a waste of time, in view of the order of reference.
I will vote for the item, because I do not want to accept the responsibility of depriving veterans in the meantime of whatever benefits may accrue to them. However, I am definitely on record that in my opinion the order of reference to the committee this year was not wide enough in the beginning, that it should have been widened, and that the basic rate should have been increased right across the board.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, we are now
discussing the departmental administration item of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and in accordance with the practice of the house that permits a wide discussion of policy on this item, I wish to make some comments.
Before I proceed to express my own points of view I should like to concur in some of the remarks just made by my good friend, the hon. member for Fraser Valley. He expressed great disappointment with the government and with the special committee on veterans affairs which has been sitting during this session. Certainly he did not overstate the case.
It has been my privilege to serve on every committee which has considered veterans affairs since I came here in the spring of 1936. In other years, when we have had such a committee, I have gone home with the feeling that, on the whole, the committee has done a good job for our old comrades, the veterans of Canada. But this year many of us go home feeling not only disappointed but also very sad at the failure to get at the roots of the problems now facing Canada's veterans.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
There have been two significant features of government policy this year concerning veterans affairs. In the first place a fundamental change has been made in Canadian pension policy by introducing for the first time a handout to a certain group of pensioners, based upon a means test, thus breaking down the principle established for over thirty years that the pension is a payment earned by the disability suffered; that a pension is something paid as of right, and that it is, indeed, the first claim of any group of Canadians on the Canadian government.
The second significant feature of government policy this year in connection with veterans affairs is the continued refusal to face the fact that the war veterans allowance is inadequate. In one session after the other, and once again this year, there has been an absolute refusal on the part of the government to face that fact. Nothing whatever is being done to meet the situation.
The tragedy is that 1951 was to be a year of great importance to the veterans of Canada because they were to have a special committee on veterans affairs. There had been no such committee since 1948, and in the intervening period problems had been accumulating, particularly the two problems which have been discussed today of the need for an increase in the basic rate of pension and in the war veterans allowance.
The two great veterans organizations of this country, the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada, which includes the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, the Canadian Corps Association, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Canadian Pensioners Association of the Great War, the Sir Arthur Pearson Association of War Blinded, and War Amputations of Canada, made detailed representations to the dominion cabinet toward the end of 1950, in which they urged that there should be an increase in the basic rate of pension and in the war veterans allowance. In the Canadian Legion brief they ask that the basic one hundred per cent pension for an unmarried veteran without dependents be increased from $94 to $125 a month, and all other pension awards by corresponding amounts, that is, by approximately 33 J per cent. Their recommendation concerning the war veterans allowance was that the basic rate should be increased to $50 per month for single recipients and $100 a month for married recipients. I believe that those figures were also used by the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada.
The promise was made by the cabinet at that time that a special committee on


veterans affairs would be set up during the 1951 session. The branches of these associations from coast to coast, veterans generally, the press and the Canadian people expected that this special committee on veterans affairs would deal with these two main problems during the present session. The record of previous committees on veterans affairs has been splendid. It has never been surpassed by any committee of the house in recent years. Everyone rightly expected that there would be results from the sittings of this committee during the present session.
What happened? There was delay in bringing in the resolution to set up the committee, but when it finally did appear on the order paper we found that the committee was to be hobbled in carrying out its work as it had never been restricted before. The resolution stated in fact that the committee was to consider only such legislation as the government saw fit to place before it. No power was given to deal with war veterans allowances; the lid was snapped on tight so far as that pressing problem was concerned.
The legislation which was introduced and sent to the committee contained some very useful amendments. I do not dispute that at all. However, the main plan of the government has been and is this handout to a small percentage of pensioners based on a means test. Of course protests were made in the house when we debated the resolution to set up the committee, and these protests were on two scores. First, we protested the failure to give the committee sufficiently wide terms of reference, and, second, we protested the nature of this proposal to meet the situation of the pensioners.
When the committee met, it heard representations by the two great veteran organizations which I have just named. Down through the years these important bodies have shown themselves to be thoroughly responsible and statesmanlike in the representations they have made to the special committees. I do not believe there have ever been finer representations made to any committee of this house in modern times than have been made on every occasion by these two associations when there has been a special committee of this house set up to deal with veterans affairs. This year was no exception.
These leaders of Canadian veterans came before the committee and pointed out that the terms of reference were too narrow, and asked that as a first step the committee should request the house to broaden its terms of reference. In spite of the fact that this new policy on pensions involved a vote which was to be paid out to about 6,000 pensioners; in spite of the fact that there was some payment

to go to veterans under that plan, the leaders of the two associations stated they would have nothing to do with it. They refused to accept that handout, and insisted that Canada's pension policy must continue to be the payment of pensions on the basis of right.
These two organizations did not always agree in earlier years. In the committee of 1948 one organization asked for and was satisfied with an increase of 25 per cent, and the other demanded an increase of 33J per cent. But this year, when they were faced with this fundamental change in pension policy, these associations united and stood firmly together. Attempts were made by various members of the committee to break down the request of these leaders, but without any success. These men stood firm, and as an old veteran of Canada I was proud of their attitude throughout.
The suggestion was made that they were only speaking for the top brass, that they did not represent the men in the branches. So far as British Columbia is concerned, I have here a resolution which was passed unanimously by the British Columbia provincial command of the Canadian Legion while the committee was considering the representations being made by the president and first vice president of the Canadian Legion. The telegram reads as follows:
The British Columbia command ol the Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L. in convention assembled at Penticton, B.C., this 21st day of May, A.D. 1951, do hereby unanimously endorse the submissions made by our dominion command to the special parliamentary committee of veterans affairs on the 17th day of May, A.D. 1951, and demand that the dominion government immediately extend the terms of reference of the special committee to allow it to consider all matters relating to the welfare of veterans taken up in the said submissions, including an immediate across the board increase of the basic rates of pensions payable under the Pension Act to veterans and their dependents, and allowances payable under the War Veterans Allowance Act commensurate with the increase in the cost of living. This convention also condemns the proposed procedure covering supplementary grants to disability pensioners as being foreign to the established and accepted principles of awarding disability pensions in that such legislation neglects the need of eighty-five per cent of those receiving disability pensions, and the needs of those receiving aid by such proposed legislation would be more adequately and properly met by the Legion's requested across the board increase on basic rates.
I have also had a submission from a group of veterans who would benefit by this handout, namely, members of the tuberculosis veterans section, branch No. 44 of the Canadian Legion in Vancouver. These men have written demanding that we endorse the submissions made by the Canadian Legion. Therefore it is not only the top brass of these two associations who are complaining of the drastic change in policy.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
To some members of this house who are not veterans it may seem strange that so much emphasis is placed on the pension being on a basis of right. I know that in the committee some of the newer members of the house had some difficulty in understanding the importance of this basic factor. They said: Oh well, this vote is going to help some of the veterans who are in need. Why not give them that help? That really shows the great objection to such a plan. These members indicated that they believed the pension should be paid if a man is in need, and that is exactly what the veterans organizations are trying to keep away from.
Hon. members who spoke earlier in this debate have pointed out that the pensions of Canada have been based on a standard which was really the lowest standard that could have been adopted, namely, the amount of wages paid for ordinary labour. The pensions are also supposed to be of a sufficient amount for the recipient, if he is a hundred per cent pensioner, to be able to subsist. They are really based on a mere subsistence level. It has always been Canadian policy that pensioners' earnings were not to be taken into consideration. The pension was given to a man so that he could start on the same footing with civilian Canadians in the race of life. If in spite of his disability he was able to get ahead and earn $10,000 or perhaps more a year, that was his privilege, and he was praised for making that additional effort.
That has been the law of the land ever since 1919. It will be found in section 24, subsection 4 of the Pension Act, which was first enacted in 1919, and reads as follows:
No deduction shall be made from the pension of any member of the forces owing to his having undertaken work or perfected himself in some form of industry.
Veterans organizations have made a point of urging their disabled comrades to find work, to get out and try to improve their position.. That has been done right down through the years since the first war. Naturally, with the pension based on wage standards, the cost of living came into the picture. When there was an increase in the cost of living, obviously the pensioner was entitled to an increase in his pension. That was the basis on which we debated in the veterans affairs committee of 1948, and the only basis. There was never any doubt that was the factor to be taken into consideration. At the present time the need of all these men who will benefit under this vote could have been met by an increase in the basic rate of pension, which of course would have preserved the basis of right in pension legislation. As some other hon. members have indicated, if after that further payments had
4496	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs to be made for some pensioners, they could very well be made by changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
So much for the basis of right. I come now to the stand taken by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. What was his argument? Late in May he admitted in Montreal that if he were to base pensions on the cost of living the claims made by these great veterans organizations could not be contradicted. I have the report of his speech- in which he said:
I cannot dispute that argument. It is a perfectly valid one if-and I want to emphasize this if- pensioners in Canada were compelled to rely on their pensions for their living. The fact is that very very few of them do, and the vast majority- about 90 per cent-are fully employed in competitive employment and enjoying the same high wage and salary rates as are enjoyed by others in the working population.
You see from that statement of government policy, Mr. Chairman, that the pensioners of Canada are being penalized because they have gone out and tried to get work for themselves in spite of their disabilities. The fact that they have, in spite of their handicaps, gone out and found jobs for themselves and carried on is now being used against them when they ask for an increase in the basic rate.
The minister said that ninety per cent are employed. That was a strange figure. We questioned it in the committee, and we found out that the way he arrived at the figure of ninety per cent of the pensioners of Canada having found jobs was that in January and February of this year there were 3,000 out of
35,000	disabled pensioners who were applying for work and were unable to get it. That will be found- at page 149, in the deputy minister's statement to the committee. It reads:


Mr.   Burns@: 35,000 of the most seriously Injured. Now you will recall, possibly, that I said in my evidence that we have not any direct means of finding out how many veterans there are who have, as it were, dropped out of the employment market . . .
Of course that is the answer to this whole percentage-that the government has not the remotest idea how many disabled veterans have dropped out and are not trying to get work.
. . . but what we did do was to check and find from national employment service during the month of February, I think, or late January, how many they had on their books-how many disabled pensioners they had who were looking for employment. I think the figure was something under 3,000, which of course is much less than the ten per cent I referred to. It indicated that our general view that less than ten per cent of pensioners were unemployed at the present time appeared to be correct.


Mr. Lennard:: I would say there are less than ten per cent looking for employment, but I would not say that the other 151,000 are fully employed.


Mr.   Burns@: Certainly we could not say that.


In my opinion the figures given by the minister were entirely unreliable, and not figures on which his argument could properly be based. He has approached this whole question of the request for an increase in pensions on a needs basis, and as a result we have this vote of $2 million.
This vote will help only 6,000 out of over
160,000	pensioners in Canada-in other words, between three and four per cent. No pensioner, if single who has less than thirty-five per cent disability or if married who has less than forty-five per cent disability, receives benefits. The payment is $20 a month for a single man and $40 for a married man. The applicant must prove that he is unemployable. He must prove that the fact that he is unemployable is due to his disability. At the moment the vote reads as follows:
To provide financial assistance after the thirty-first of May, 1951, in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council to unemployable veterans who are in receipt of pension under the Pension Act for a disability which is a major factor contributing to their unemployability.
The committee has recommended that the word "major" be deleted.


Mr. Mutch:: That has been agreed to.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad to hear that the government has agreed to the change. There will be a different policy in each district, because this vote is to be administered out in the districts. The argument has been made that there is no means test connected with this vote. I believe that the vote has been set up purposely so that that argument could be made. For example, we are told that a man may have any amount of money in bonds or stocks, and if he is unemployable because of a pensionable disability he will still be eligible to get this handout. At the same time we are told that if a man is on superannuation, he will not be able to get it. Furthermore, anyone over 70 is not going to get it, but must be satisfied with the new old age pension. It will be of no help to the widows or children of veterans.
I believe that in the actual administration of this vote it will be found that there is not only a means test, but a very severe means test. I believe also that it is, in fact, brought in as an alternative to increasing the basic rate of pension. The arguments in the meetings of the committee indicate quite clearly the thought is that this will stop the demand for an increase in the basic rate of pension.
There is no doubt that the policy has been cleverly devised, in just the same way as the war veterans assistance fund was devised back in 1949. There were demands for an increase under the War Veterans Allowance

Act, and instead of meeting those demands the government brought in a vote. It was set out in the following terms:
To authorize under regulations to be approved by the governor general in council the establishment of an assistance fund (war veterans allowance) from which shall be paid supplementary assistance in cases of acute financial distress as may be found to exist from time to time among recipients of benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
That vote was used to take off the pressure at the top. Recipients of the war veterans' allowance who were having difficulty were given assistance from this special fund, and that let off the steam, so to speak, and stopped a certain amount of the agitation for an increase in the war veterans' allowance. I suggest to this committee that the very same thing is being done by the supplementary allowance to certain pensioners under vote 650. It is designed to prevent further increases in the basic rate of pension, Unfortunately, it throws the Canadian war disabilities pension entirely off any basis; it unhinges the whole basis of the Canadian pension. That is one of the main reasons why the veterans organizations and the opposition members of the committee have opposed it.
The majority in the committee voted down a proposal that the terms of reference should be widened. The proposal was moved in these words by the member for Royal:
I would like to move an amendment:
That item 650 do not now carry but that this committee request the house that it be given instructions to consider the basic rates of pensions and the War Veterans Allowance Act and make recommendations in reference thereto.
Only one Liberal member of the committee voted for that amendment, and that was the member for Fraser Valley. All the rest voted against it and prevented the committee from coming back to the house with a request that its terms of reference be widened.


Mr. Blackmore:: The steam roller in action.


Howard Charles Green: The steam roller in action- that exactly described what happened. The same thing happened when item 650 was voted upon. Again we had the government combining, but in that case without any exception, whereas the members of the opposition voted against it.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: I can finish in about one minute.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Howard Charles Green: I had a feeling throughout that the members of the government on that committee were greatly embarrassed by government policy. I believe that the stand taken today by the member for Fraser Valley pretty
Supply-Veterans Affairs well represents the real feeling of many of the other government members on that committee.
The government's whole approach to the two main problems in veterans affairs in 1951, namely, the need for an increase in the basic rate of pension and an increase in the war veterans allowance, has been unwise and unfair. These Canadians who are involved have earned a decent pension. Those who are in receipt of war veterans allowance have earned the payment of an adequate amount for that allowance. Their fellow Canadians want them to receive adequate benefits. I do not think there would be any objection anywhere in Canada to giving these men what they so justly deserve. Yet this unwise and unfair attitude is being adopted at a time when the government is again calling on young Canadians to volunteer for service.
To me, Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to see the veterans of earlier wars being treated in such a cavalier fashion. I hope that even yet the government will change the policy on veterans affairs which it has been trying to force through during the present session.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. Wright:: For a number of years since I came to the house I have been a member of the veterans affairs committee, and I must say that this year when the number from our group on that committee was reduced and I found myself not a member of the committee, I was a bit disappointed. But after reading the reference of the committee, and after hearing the remarks of the various members who were on the committee this year, and the frustration which they felt, largely owing to the narrowness of the terms of reference, I have not felt so badly that I was not a member of the committee.
We in Canada are in a fortunate position. Since 1939 we have increased tremendously our ability to produce goods and services. In dollar value our national product has practically tripled. In goods and services we have practically doubled the amount that is available to our people. The various claims that you and I and other people in our economy have on these goods and services are represented by the dollars which we earn in the form of wages or salaries or profits that we make in our businesses. In every sector of our community, practically, except one, these dollars have increased with the value of the national product. Wages have increased; returns to agriculture have
4498	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs increased; business profits have increased, and every sector in our economy has been able to purchase a fair share of the goods and services that we have been able to produce. But there is one exception to that, namely, the people who are on fixed incomes. Among them we find our people on old age pensions, and our returned men of the first and second wars.
In 1948 the veterans affairs committee did increase the basic pension by twenty-five per cent. In other words we recognized at that time that these people were not able to purchase their share of the goods and services which we were able to produce in Canada, and we gave them twenty-five per cent more purchasing power. Since that time the dollar value of these goods and services has increased, but we have not given to our pensioners the ability to use these goods and services which we are able to produce, or their fair share of these goods and services. Everyone in Canada realizes that.
Our various veterans organizations have been very fair in their demands on the government. They have never asked for everything that the traffic would bear. They have asked for what they thought was a fair share of the goods and services we were producing. They accepted the twenty-five per cent increase under protest, and there were many of us on the veterans affairs committee in 1949 who thought that some more flexible legislation should have been brought in. As a matter of fact, at that time we in this group moved a resolution which in effect would have increased the basic pension to 33J per cent, plus one dollar additional per month on each pension for each point rise in the cost of living index. Had that been accepted, our pensioners now would have been getting enough dollars to purchase their share of the goods and services. That resolution went to a vote in the committee and the committee divided evenly on it. The chairman cast the deciding vote against the resolution, and as a result we find that those on fixed pensions are in a pretty difficult position. It is only natural that they should come to parliament to rectify that situation; but we find the government bringing in item 650. I fail to recognize why they are prepared to give consideration only to those who are unemployable-unemployable because of medical reasons or because of the particular situation in the district in which they live. We find this vote being brought in which will alleviate the position of an estimated
6,000	of our veterans. But it does not affect the great bulk of our veterans. It does not change their position one iota. They are still in exactly the same position as they were before.
[Mr. Wright.1

If hon. members will give consideration to it, they cannot help but recognize the justness of the claims which are being made at this time for some change in the basic pension scheme, some general increase in the basic pension.
The hon. member for Royal moved a resolution asking that war veterans allowances be referred to the committee. He failed. We tried from a different angle, and again we failed to get consideration of that suggestion. Now we find that under the new old age pension scheme, which was introduced yesterday, those receiving the basic pension of $40 a month will be allowed to earn income up to $20 a month. Under the war veterans allowance, war veterans are allowed to earn income of only $10 a month. That means that many of these veterans, when they reach the age of 65, will inevitably transfer to the old age pension scheme. They will then become a fifty per cent responsibility of the provinces. That is a fine way for this government to shift some of its responsibilities to the provinces, but it is not fair to the provinces, because some of them, the wealthier ones, may be able to carry that load, but it is certain that some of them will not be able to carry it.
In discussing old age pension legislation in this house yesterday it was indicated that certain of the provinces were going to find it very difficult to institute the full 65 to 69 old age pension; that they might have to raise the age limit, or they might have to reduce the amount. If we as a government transfer some of our responsibilities with regard to war veterans allowances, which are the responsibility of the dominion, to the provinces, it just means that they are in that much worse position in regard to their responsibilities to our citizens between 65 and 69 years of age. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is treating the provinces fairly.
Perhaps we have failed at this session to get the government to give more consideration to this basic pension and more consideration to the war veterans allowance. But so far as I am concerned and so far as this group is concerned-indeed, I believe so far as the whole opposition is concerned-we will not let the matter stop there. We are certainly going to come back to parliament at the fall session demanding that the government do something with regard to this matter. I do not believe veterans organizations are prepared to let the matter drop.
This item 650, this supplementary pension we are about to give to the unemployables, will help in certain instances, but must be very difficult to administer. Anyone who

gives a moment's thought to the matter can see the difficulty we are going to run into in the administration of a vote such as this. The regulations will be made in Ottawa, and the administration of those regulations will have to be left to thousands of officials across the dominion. Each of those officials will interpret the regulations in his own way. There will be such a variety of interpretations that, unless some appeal board is set up to pass upon the regulations or upon the judgments of the officials, there will be a totally different administration of the vote in different areas of the dominion.
I can just picture what will happen after this has been in operation for six months or a year: each member of the house will have dozens of cases referred to him for his attention. The department is asking for trouble, and I am afraid it will get it in connection with the administration of a vote such as this. In my opinion it certainly cannot be administered fairly throughout the dominion, because of the entirely different conditions of employment in the different parts of the country, and because of the different interpretations which will be given to any regulations set up under the act.
Therefore I would urge that, if the government is not prepared to do something at this session.-and apparently it is not-something should be done at the fall session with regard to the basic pension and the war veterans allowance.
With regard to the treatment of children and widows of war veterans, it is true that under the amendments to the act some alleviation has been given to them; but there is no increase so far as orphans are concerned. It seems to me that we in parliament have a responsibility to the children of deceased veterans, that of making available to them the best educational facilities in the country. Certainly, under the present scale of payments to widows and orphans, those children are not going to be able to have the education to which they are entitled. No one will argue that on $40 a month a child can be educated in high school and in college. Yet in many cases, if the veterans of these children had returned to Canada, we would have been prepared under the veterans charter to give those veterans three or four years of university education. But under the present legislation we refuse to make that education available to the children. That is not good enough, and I do not believe the people of Canada think it is good enough. They would agree with me that the children of those veterans are entitled to every advantage that would have been theirs if their
Supply

Veterans Affairs fathers had returned. The fathers, nad they returned, would have assumed that responsibility. Unfortunately, however, they did not, and the government, through parliament, has a responsibility to those children to see that they get the best education that they are able to assimilate and use. It is to our advantage as well as that of the children. If we have another war-which God forbid-we shall have to go back to our young men and ask them to make sacrifices, and they are going to consider the treatment we have given to them and the children of the men who served in the last two wars.
It seems impossible that parliament should not give more sympathetic consideration to the position of our veterans and their children. It is only common sense and good business to administer our legislation in such a way that the people whom we are going to ask to serve will feel that they are serving a country that will look after their children and their rights. We are not doing that when we maintain our pension at its present level. As I said at the beginning, it simply means that those veterans are not able to purchase their share of the goods and services we can produce.
Before taking nay seat I would urge the minister and the government at the fall session to bring in legislation, and to set up the veterans affairs committee again after placing before it a reference under which it will be in a position to give further consideration to these matters and to make recommendations to meet the needs of the veterans and carry out what I am sure will be the wishes of the people of Canada as a whole.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a brief word. I have had a good deal to do with veterans, but let me say now that I have never written a letter to the pension board to which I have not received a prompt reply. Many cases have come to my attention. I have not always got everything I asked for, because I have asked for some things that were not according to law. I must, however, pay my tribute to the officials for their efficiency and for their judgment tempered with mercy.
One case in particular had reference to a veteran of the first war. At the time I reported it conditions were different, and I was not able to follow it through. The man in question was reported by a local doctor as having shrapnel in his liver. Perhaps I might add in passing that the doctor was a gold medallist. Recently he went to Scotland, and, despite the fact that he is more than forty years of age, took one of the highest possible degrees in surgery.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
The person in question could work for only two or three days at a time but, like the independent Scotsman he was, he would not give up. Now we are trying to get a pension for his widow. I pay my tribute to the chairman who, I believe, is doing everything possible to have that pension approved. In my view the wife should have at least $60 a month from the time her husband died. This man had served gallantly in the first war, and gave his life for his God and his country. The best we can do for his widow is none too good.
I believe I have nothing further to add at the moment.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with and to endorse the remarks of the hon. members for Royal and Vancouver-Quadra concerning our position so far as veterans affairs are concerned, and the position taken by members of this party in the committee on veterans affairs. That has been discussed in some detail; therefore my observations will be brief.
I regret, in common with I think all others who have spoken here today, that the reference to the committee on veterans affairs this year was so limited, and I regret particularly that it was impossible for us in the committee to discuss, deal with and make recommendations in connection with war veterans allowances. I do not think there is a question in the mind of anyone in this house or throughout the country that the considerable increase which has taken place in the cost of living has placed disability pensioners and the recipients of war veterans allowances in an extraordinarily difficult position. As far as war veterans allowance recipients who have no other means of livelihood are concerned, I just cannot see how they can live. It seems to me it must be almost impossible for them to keep body and soul together on that allowance at the present time with the prices that prevail.
There is no question that the basic need at the present time is an increase in disability pensions across the board and also in the war veterans allowance. This is the last place in which any attempt at saving within the government service should be made. Therefore I do not think anyone need apologize for asking for an increase of expenditures in connection with disability pensions and war veterans allowances.
I think the least that could be done in connection with war veterans allowances-if it is not done now, I would hope it will be done immediately at the commencement of the fall session-is to increase the amount of allowable extra income which a recipient may have. Considering the increased cost of living

it seems most unreasonable that these recipients should be held down to the same limits of extra income which have prevailed since the war. Such a move would not cost the government a nickel and it would greatly ease the position of a large number of these war veterans allowance recipients. It would encourage many of these people to take on *casual work which under the present circumstances they usually do not do because their earnings will cut down their allowance and in addition they get into all sorts of difficulties with the department.
A considerable number of the most difficult cases I have had to deal with and bring to the attention of the officials of the department have been cases where war veterans allowance recipients have taken extra work and as a result have earned more than the allowable income. This was taken away from them later on and in many cases they were left in most pitiful circumstances. As I say, this would not cost anything to put into effect and it is something I hope will be done immediately.
I think it has been amply demonstrated that this unemployability supplement is contrary to our basic concept of a disability pension. Up to the present time that concept has been that this pension is given as of right. There was no means or any other test connected with it. Whether the test which is now going to be imposed is a means test or an unemployability test, it comes to the same thing-it is a compromise with the basic idea of our pension system. I opposed it in the committee and I propose to continue to oppose it. I think the Canadian Legion and the dominion veterans council were right and justified in the opposition they showed to this unemployability supplement. I do not think the arguments they put forward have been refuted.
It was suggested by Major Wickens who put forward the views of the Canadian council that if any such thing as this unemployability supplement was going to be put into effect it should be in conjunction with the war veterans allowance and not in conjunction with the disability pension. I urged that in the committee and I still think that that is the proper course to follow. Even at this late date I hope the government will take this action and try to tie this in with the war veterans allowance rather than to do it in the way it is being done.


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first occasion upon which I have spoken on veterans affairs. I am not a veteran and I have the idea that in some fields there may be some feeling of presumption when those who are not veterans essay to speak on veterans

affairs. At the present time there are in the House of Commons 98 members who are veterans of either the first or the second world war. They have approached this subject of veterans problems without any regard to politics. I think the most enjoyable part of the debate so far is due to the fact that these problems have been approached without any regard to politics. I hope that spirit will always exist. If they are approached from any other point of view, the only loser will be the veteran.
I have always been struck with the treatment that is given the veteran of the second world war as compared to that given to the veteran of the first world war. I was just a youngster at the time, but if my memory serves me correctly the boys who came back in 1918 got $70 for six months with a clothing allowance of some $50 and the country more or less said to them "Goodbye, and good luck." I often felt that any improvement that was made in their position was brought about only as a result of the greatest pressure being exerted.
I had the good fortune to be a guest in the galleries of this house in 1945 when the thirteen bills that made up the so-called veterans charter were enacted. They made up a particularly generous piece of legislation and I think we are realizing now how wise it was for the veterans of the second, world war. I can remember many people saying in connection with the educational grants, "What are we going to do with all these university graduates?" This year the corporations in Canada are grabbing the graduates from our universities at such a rate that it is to be regretted that we have not twice as many. The wisdom shown by that legislation which arose out of the work of a committee of some 60 members of all parties who tried to do the best they could for the veterans of Canada should be an indication of what can be done in the future.
I want to bring one thing to the attention of the committee, the position of the old, sick and broken veteran who in many hundreds of cases is living in abject circumstances in many of our cities. I think the other Vancouver members will agree with me when I say that every week we see six or seven obituary notices in the paper with the little maple leaf up in the corner. The padres have to go around and arrange burials for these men. That is not much of a tribute to men who were considered to be heroes in 1919. I suggest to the minister that this particular situation cannot be taken care of by increasing the pension. We must go beyond that. I contend that there will have to be a greater extension of institutional care for these men.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
I think the veteran organizations are in the best position of any organization to give advice to the minister regarding veterans affairs. They know their present conditions and present needs. I hope the minister will keep closely in touch with veteran organizations in all parts of the country and consider their representations on behalf of their own groups as well as their individual members.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Chairman, when we hear the word "veterans" mentioned in this house today we must dismiss from our minds such men as myself. Although a veteran of the first war, I have had the great privilege of being able to make a livelihood, and fortunately most of the men who served in the first great war find themselves in a similar position. When we speak of veterans today we are speaking on behalf of men whom, if we will recollect, we saw leave Canada during the years 1914 to 1918. They were not men in those days. They were men in the sense that they were soldiers, but they were boys. Everybody in the Dominion of Canada and all our allies were delighted to see them pulling out from the hamlets, villages, towns and cities of the Dominion of Canada to board transport ships to go across to a foreign land to offer their lives. If it had not been for those men and the men of the last war from all countries who volunteered to protect those who were not as fortunate, who did not have the privilege of offering their lives or their services in the defence of their homes, there would not be such a thing as a veteran.
If these men had not gone as freely and willingly as they went there would be no House of Commons, and we who are sitting here would not have the privilege of voting a sum of money to see that men who cannot look after themselves are taken care of in the manner that they should be. We must bear in mind how delighted we were to see them boarding the trains, boats and ships of the navy during the first war. We must remember that they were standing there when the first gas attack took place at Ypres in 1915, that they were the men who went over the top at Vimy Ridge and captured it for the first time from the enemy. We must remember the men of the second war who jumped into water over their depth on the beaches of Normandy with full equipment. These are the men who have made it possible for us to debate and decide in this House of Commons how those who were not so fortunate as I was are going to be compensated for the sacrifices they made on our behalf.
We must always bear in mind the bands, the bugles, the boys marching in the streets, the sailors, the airmen, the soldiers. These are the people we are considering today, and

Supply-Veterans Affairs I am sure that members of the House of Commons do not want to express their appreciation in any slighting manner. I say to members of all parties that here is one group of men and women who must receive our first consideration. They are men who, because of their services to the country, now find themselves in not as good a position as we are. They are men who are handicapped through the hardships of war. Those who served to some degree, and some to a greater degree than others, are familiar with the events of the first war. Let us not lay our heads on our pillows at night and sleep with any degree of satisfaction if any man who is incapacitated through service to his country is in need. When men of the medical profession have announced that a man is in need of a certain pension, and that man has a little more energy and ability than some other fellow and is able to earn some extra income, his pension has been set by, we hope, a competent medical board and they have decided that he is entitled to so much money for the sacrifices he has made for us. That should stand. His added energy and his added willingness to work and earn a few extra shekels are none of our business. We should never forget as long as we live that it is such sacrifices that make it possible for us to sleep at nights in our homes. It is because of such sacrifices that we do not have German hordes overrunning and enslaving the people of the Dominion of Canada, every man, woman and child on the North American continent.
Today it is the ideals of the veteran and his sacrifices that make the Russian hordes stand still and realize that they will have that type of man to contend with. Let us hope that members of the House of Commons are the kind of people who will not forget the type of men who have stemmed the tide of the enemy and made it possible for us to sit in the House of Commons and give a justifiable reward to these people. Never forget the sacrifices they have made. There is hardly a day that I do not thank God that I am able to make a living, that I am able to sit in the House of Commons, and that I have not been incapacitated to any great extent through my service in the first great war. The least I can do is to say to members of the House of Commons, as a veteran of the first war who is very fortunate in not having been incapacitated, Let us not forget. Let us bend backward, a little too far if necessary, in behalf of the defenders of our homes and our land.


Mr. Fair:: I feel compelled to say a few words in support of the veterans and those dependent upon them. I was quite interested in the speeches delivered so far today. I listened to the hon. member for Royal, the


hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra and many others whom I will not take time to enumerate. One of the last was my good friend from Vancouver South who is in the same boat as I am inasmuch as we did not take part in any of the wars. I feel I am compelled to say a few words in support of the pleas of the veterans organizations because I am a comparatively ablebodied Canadian citizen, and while I have complained about paying certain taxes I am not going to complain about paying any taxes that are necessary to take care of our veterans and their families.
I have been able to compliment veterans affairs committees that have been set up in the past. They have done a really good job, and I am quite satisfied that the veterans who sat on the committee this year would have done an equally good job if they had mot been fettered by the terms of reference laid down by the government. Their position reminds me of the old maid who had a cat. They both lived in an apartment together, and on one occasion when the old maid was going away she brought a tin of canned milk for the cat but did not leave a can opener, and the poor cat starved to death.
The veterans affairs committee was set up this year for the first time since 1948, but the terms of reference were not broad enough to permit them to look after the needs of the veterans and their dependents. I have read the speech of the minister, and I am not very well satisfied with it. At page 22 of the report of the proceedings of the special committee the minister said:
Now, the item that is before you as a supplementary estimate implements the intention of the government to provide supplementary allowances for pensioners who are unemployable and whose pensionable disability is a major factor in their unemployability.
I feel all veterans receiving pensions are entitled to consideration under this measure and not only those who are unemployable. The minister gave consideration to these fellows later because at page 23 he said:
Now, a pensioner lives with his disability twenty-four hours a day and not only during his working hours, and therefore it seems we should consider a pension in terms broader than that of a subsistence allowance.
I am glad the minister has the good sense to recognize that. I only wish he had followed along the right path, because that is the basis upon which this compensation should be dealt with and not for the purpose of giving these people a very slim standard of living. He said on page 22:
As you know, representations were made to the department last autumn by the Canadian Legion and by the national council of veterans associations

for an increase across the board in the basic rate of pension, and for various other measures of assistance to pensioners and dependents.
I feel that the government should have paid a little more attention to the request of these organizations, because these organizations are made up, as we all know, of men who have done their bit in the past to look out for our safety and prosperity. Again I say that while I have complained bitterly of certain taxation no one will ever hear me complain about paying taxes to look after our veterans and their dependents.
Then the minister went on to say:
Now, after very careful consideration of the representations by responsible veterans organizations and after having made a survey of the situation ourselves we came to the conclusion that the most pressing problem or problems, rather, were those of pensioners who were unable to work and who had to consider their pensions, at whatever rate it might have been, as their sole source of income; and similarly that there was hardship in the cases of widows with small children who because of the care they had to give to their children were unable to supplement their pension income.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs had his Anger right on the trouble spot, but apparently the government or the treasury board- I am not sure from whom he got his instructions-were not willing to take care of those cases of hardship that should be taken care of by a prosperous Canada.
After dealing with what I spoke of a moment ago, the pensioner having to live with his disability for twenty-four hours a day, the minister said at page 23:
This change in the concept of disability which has taken place in the last few years is certainly due in great part to the courage and the determination of the disabled persons themselves who have been the greatest single contributing factor to this change in our thinking because they have refused to be retired, they have refused to be in sheltered employment, they have insisted they can be completely self-supporting in the competitive field of business and industry, and the success which their tenacity has achieved has certainly taught us a great deal of how little in some cases the most serious disabilities may interfere with every day earning of a living.
Again I think the minister is straying off the track. While these men suffer every day of the week, and in many cases twenty-four hours of the day, they have that tenacity that has been mentioned by the minister. Had they not had this tenacity perhaps they would not have done the fighting that they have, and which has been the cause of their disabilities. I feel that instead of dealing with their pensions as a means of giving them a slim standard of living, they should have been dealt with as a compensation for the disabilities they have and the suffering they are enduring from one year to the other.
Supply-Veterans Affairs I am not going to take up too much time, but I should like to quote this portion of the minister's statement before the special committee. It appears on page 24.
Now, to give the result of these investigations in very general terms we found that over ninety per cent of pensioners were employed and that their income as a whole compared favourably with their incomes before their enlistment.
I believe everyone realizes that wages and cost of living were entirely different at the time these men enlisted from what they were during the period in which the department was giving consideration to the incomes received by these men. I say that should not be the basis of their compensation. At the bottom of page 24 he had this to say: Might I add, Mr. Chairman, that, as hon. members of the committee know, besides the provisions for this unemployability supplement, bills will shortly be laid before you to amend the Pension Act so as to increase the amount payable in respect of children of widows to assist in the education of the children of men who have died in the country's service and to extend the limiting date for world war I veteran marriages.
Again I point out that those children have to have food, clothing and shelter as well as education. Those things should certainly be taken care of by the people of this country.
In speaking a while ago the member for Vancouver South mentioned the $70 a month for six months and the clothing allowance of $50 given to the men who were discharged after the first great war. Over the years we have been trying in this house, and in the veterans affairs committees, to do something to rectify many of the wrongs that have been done to these veterans of world war I. I believe that those who came back from world war II have received better treatment because of the manner in which the members showed up the treatment that had been accorded the men who came back from the first war. We have with us still many of the wrongs that have been done to veterans of the first world war. Our old soldier settlers are an example. We have done a little bit from time to time at the instance of members of the opposition, and some on the other side, including the parliamentary assistant to the minister, who has been right out in the open in his defence of these men, the member for Fraser Valley and some others I should name; but we have not been able to settle all the injustices these men have received. It is not too late yet.
We are never too old to improve our ways or to lessen the suffering of those of our fellow men who have had disabilities imposed upon them while discharging their duty towards their country. I would urge, as many other members have urged, that the war veterans allowance and the basic pension
4504	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs for disabled veterans be increased. Today we are appealing to young men and women to enlist tor service in Korea, and in the forces we are gathering in support of the North Atlantic pact. Many of them are able to look back and see the treatment that has been meted out to their fathers, and in some cases their mothers, so I feel that this is a poor time for us to treat the veterans as this legislation is doing. Item 650 is quite all right, but it does not go far enough. The suggestions that have been made by the many members who have spoken in support of better treatment for the war veterans receiving war veterans allowance and disability pension should be heeded, even at this late date. The act could be amended, so let us get busy and do something about it.


Mr. Gibson:: I, too, have been very much impressed by the obvious sincerity of the speeches that have been made by hon. members here today. I would not want to be unfair and not pay a tribute to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and to his parliamentary assistant, because I appreciate that they have been doing what they believe to be right. Of the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and of the officials of the pensions branch I can say that they have certainly always demonstrated to me since I have been here that they are men of broad sympathies for the veterans, and are men of real capacity and integrity. I should like to congratulate them upon the excellent work that they have been doing. On behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the sixteen Canadian Legions and ladies auxiliaries to those legions in the riding of Comox-Alberni, I should like to express appreciation to the members of the veterans affairs committee. I do not think that the public generally in Canada have an appreciation of the tremendous amount of work and study that the members of that committee have put into the discharge of their duties. I must thank them and congratulate them on the work that they have done.
Unfortunately, I myself cannot claim the honour of being a veteran, and I was therefore ineligible to act on that committee. But as a civilian, I should just like to say that I feel that civilians generally in Canada did fairly well out of both the first and second great war. We had opportunities of making financial gains at a time when others in this country were wasting the best years of their youth and were taking great chances on our behalf.
As a civilian I should like to say this. The government will never find me complaining about any tax that it sees fit to impose upon me and on other civilians in Canada in order 

to meet our just obligations to the veterans. It seems to me that the government, in saying that they will not institute a system of price control-in which view I have concurred-have done the right thing. I believe they have been wise so far in resisting the pressure to institute over-all price controls in Canada. At the same time I feel that they have an obligation to see that certain segments of our population are protected from the ravages of inflation. Now that we have passed legislation to take care of our senior citizens by means of this universal old age pension at 70, it seems to me that we should do our utmost to see that the veterans in this country are given generous treatment.
As I have said before in this chamber, the large surpluses this government has accumulated since 1945 have not been the result of anything startling in the way of management. They have been the result of the depreciated value of the dollar. We have built up a surplus of $2 billion here since the end of the war. Just last year a dramatic surplus was announced in our budget. The last two months have shown that our revenues are running high because of the fact that inflation is still continuing in this country. This $2 million that we have offered here, compared with our general budget, is such a niggardly sum that I feel almost ashamed that that is all we are going to offer the veterans this year in order to compensate them for the decreased purchasing power of the dollar since 1948, the last time we readjusted their pensions. As I say, I feel almost ashamed that all we can offer them this year is $2 million.
The supplementary estimates have not been brought down yet. I should like the government to consider perhaps doubling this sum that is going to be made available. I should also appreciate it greatly if the minister could say to us that he will undertake to have this matter opened up again in the fall so that we may consider it in the light of the circumstances that may be before us and before the pensioners themselves.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up the time of the committee for long. I was a member of the veterans affairs committee in this last parliament. I was also a member of the veterans affairs committee which sat for four years and which was responsible for the veterans charter. But since this matter has come into the house, I have heard various viewpoints advanced, and I am glad to say that the feeling of the house in general and,
I think, of every member, has been one of sympathy for the veteran.
There are certain things that we should consider when we think of veterans of both

the first and the second great wars. Some of those things were mentioned by the last two or three hon. members who have spoken. The veterans of the first war were in a position different from that of veterans of the second war. In the first war we accepted men in the army from the ages of 18 to 50. In the second war we had more mechanical equipment, the type of warfare was different, and it was a war for which only younger men were fitted. But in the period between the first war and the second one we came through the period of the depression in the thirties. Many of our older veterans, during the ten years from 1930 to the beginning of the last war in 1939, in common with many other people in this country, had little or no opportunity to put by any backlog of savings.
I do not like the term that is sometimes used: burnt-out veterans pension. I do not like the word "pension" at any time. I should like to see it called not a war veterans pension but a war disability compensation. To me that seems better than calling it a pension. But the people who are receiving war veterans allowance are now becoming older and they are feeling the effects of age. They are also feeling the effects of the high cost of living. I know that some of these men are in want. I know that some of them need help.
When item 650 came before the veterans affairs committee, I felt that it was not broad enough. I also felt that the terms of reference to the committee should have been broadened. I should like to have seen that committee review completely the position of veterans of both the first and the second war.
I also found out-I was not aware of it at the time-when I heard the brief of the Canadian Legion and also the brief of the national council, that the Canadian Legion had made representations to the government last fall. The national council has some
350,000	members and the Canadian Legion has a large membership. Those two bodies together, in their membership, represent practically all the returned men in the Dominion of Canada. When they brought in a brief suggesting the position they were in and that certain amendments should be made to this bill, and when I heard the witnesses who appeared before the veterans affairs committee, I felt that there was something decidedly wrong. As I said, I did not like the terms of reference. If I needed anything more to make me feel as I did, it was supplied when I saw the witnesses before the committee and heard the briefs presented.
Something new has been brought out in the way of legislation. We formerly passed our legislation on the question of disability.
Supply-Veterans Affairs This provision seems to accommodate a certain few of the pensioners, a matter of 6,000. When we have made this departure from the existing legislation, I feel that we have made a mistake. I still feel that pension or war disability compensation should be based on disability, and that that is the only way in which we can do a right and proper job of assessing the amount of compensation necessary.
The other point which bothered me a great deal in the committee was the fact that out of the total number of pensioners numbering about 162,000-and I use the short term now-we are singling out 6,000 to receive additional compensation. I feel that the amount should be increased across the board both for pensioners and for people on war veterans allowance. Age has entered into this matter. Age has been added sometimes to disability, especially with regard to the pensioner of the first war.
That raises the question of the term "unemployability". I opposed that term in the committee and I say again to the minister that the question of proving unemployability is going to be difficult when it comes to the matter of administration, as well as the matter of the disability of the pensioner. As I explained at the time when this question was before the committee, when you get age added to a war disability you have something which it is difficult to assess. The veterans of the first war are becoming older. The matter of age is becoming something that we have to recognize. We have to recognize it by making it possible for these men to live in some degree of comfort. The two wars were different. That is admitted. One was stationary. The line did not change so very much. But there were hardships. That was realized by the government of the time that brought in war veterans allowance. They recognized that that period did take from a man some of the strength of his physique that he might have in later years. If it was true at that time, it is truer at the present time. When you add to that the fact that there is possibly a hidden disability, which adds to the disability of age, you can see that these men are finding it very difficult to get along in the world at the present time. For that reason I feel that the amount which is set forth in this vote is entirely inadequate to deal with the situation at the present time for the veterans of the first war, the second war and also those on war veterans allowance.


Mr. Croll:: I just have a few words to say, which arise as a result of some observations by hon. members across the way. They have indicated that there were a great number of
4S06

Supply-Veterans Affairs young members on the committee, particularly from the Liberal side of the house. I think the inference was left that they were not able to cope with this problem. It was a younger committee, and it was composed of veterans.
Let me say this to begin with. The opposition certainly threw in their first team, and it is fair to say that the committee, from their point of view, was studded with political giants. In so far as we were concerned, we had a nucleus of our first team on there, but we were rather in the fortunate position of having a great number of able young men, who are veterans. They are capable. We gave them a bit of seasoning on the committee so that they in turn will become as experienced as we have turned out to be.
One thing must be said for our men on the committee. They applied themselves. They were very energetic and they attended to their duties. There is no doubt that if we had had a wider term of reference we would have done a better job than we did, but do not forget, the house gave us the terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Arnold Croll: The people's representatives gave us the terms of reference. Just before the house rose for lunch the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said something that I thought was a little unnecessary. He said that hon. members were embarrassed with government policy.


Howard Charles Green: Were you not?


David Arnold Croll: Let me say to him that not half or quarter as much were they embarrassed by government policy as my hon. friend embarrassed the Conservative party by voting against the $2 million supplement. I hope the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is here, because he is carrying away a wrong impression. I do not like that. He is too intelligent a member to walk out of here with the wrong impression. A great number of hon. members are in the same position. They talk about the $2 million supplement. It is a $2 million vote. The government may very well spend not $2 million but $10 million, if in their opinion it is required.


John Lambert Gibson: That is good.


David Arnold Croll: The government estimates that
6.000	or more veterans will need supplemental assistance. It may turn out that 10,000,
12.000	or 15,000 veterans will need this assistance. I do not know. They really do not know themselves. We on this side ,of the house have an interest in this legislation as great as the interest in any part of the house. We are firmly of the opinion that there has not been any departure from the principle


of pensions. If there were we would not have supported this measure-none of us would have supported it.
There is no denying that the veterans made a formidable case for an increase. We recognize that. There has been a 27 point increase in the cost of living since the last increase in pensions. I am sure the difficulty that was facing the government and the committee was to know just exactly how much of an increase to recommend. I am sure that none of us was in a position to say what that increase should be. I am sure that the government found itself in the same position.
When the original brief was presented in 1950, asking for an increase in pension the cost of living was moving up. No one could say where it would end. I am sure the government was faced at that time with this problem: How much should we increase this pension? If we increase it now will it remain at that level for a while? Can we stabilize it in some way? I think they took the sensible course in first trying to stabilize the cost of living-and they have had some success in that regard. Last month was a very good month. This month will probably not be so good, but August and September will prove a great deal. These months will indicate to us whether we have been able to arrest the climb in the cost of living.
The government was faced with this problem. If they increased the basic pension at that particular time, without having stabilized the cost of living, they would have had to put in an escalator clause permitting them at some time or other to have a downward revision. But no Liberal government I am sure will under any circumstances reduce the amount of money that the pensioners will receive. In the face of that, having come to this twilight zone between the cost of living and the pension increase, they decided that they would deal with the problem on the basis of need and spend $2 million, $3 million, $5 million, or whatever they required, until such time as they were able to judge what would be required by way of a basic increase in pension so that it would stay fixed for some time. They came to the conclusion that this was the way of meeting this problem in the interval. It seems to me it is a sensible approach to it.
The committee recommended that the government should reconsider the Legion brief. We did that with much honesty and in the fervent hope that the government would study the brief in the face of all the circumstances and would come to the conclusion to grant increases across the board.
There was absolute agreement in the committee on that. On the other hand, we felt that at the present time it was urgent, it was

important to help that small group of veterans who, for some reason or other, particularly because of unemployability, and physical deterioration, are in need of assistance. To meet that need, vote 650 for $2 million was introduced, to be administered in the same liberalized fashion as other veterans' legislation has been administered, in the hope that this will carry them over until such time as the government is able to take a good look at the brief and make its decision.


Mr. Pearkes:: I do not want to delay the committee for more than a minute in passing these estimates, because I know that the veterans of the country require the money which will be voted to them in the course of the next hour or two. But I did want to record my disappointment that the terms of reference of the committee had not been extended, and to express the hope that a committee would be set up at the next session of parliament and be granted wider terms.
Reference has just been made by the hon. member for Spadina to possible embarrassment on the part of members of the opposition because they may express their disapproval of a principle which they believe introduces the means test into pension legislation by the only means at their disposal, namely by voting against this item in the supplementary estimates. I hope the hon. member for Spadina is correct in the assurance he gave that that was not the intention of introducing the means test into pension legislation. So far as I am concerned I must admit that it does appear to me as the thin edge of the wedge.
I repeat the hope that there will be a veterans committee set up at the next session of parliament and that it will have wide terms of reference so that it may inquire into the relationship of the disability pension and war veterans allowances to the cost of living. I suggest one other field which in my opinion the committee should investigate and that is the position in which, unfortunately, veterans of the Canadian merchant marine still find themselves in matters of rehabilitation, pensions and hospitalization. I am impressed by the importance of raising that question again. I know it has been discussed in previous committees, but I for one was never satisfied with the decisions reached. And in the light of discussions which have taken place in the house in the last week where we have learned that ships flying the Canadian flag are manned entirely by foreigners, I think we should review the position of veterans in the Canadian merchant marine.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I should like to make a few remarks. The hon. member for Spadina indicated that other members had provoked him. It is largely because of the position he has just taken that I am provoked to the point of speaking in this debate.
When the terms of reference were set out in the resolution I strongly protested on the ground that we were not going to be a veterans affairs committee, as we had been in previous years, but that we were going to be merely a legislation examining committee. Our only scope was to discuss whatever the government put in the terms of a bill or in a vote. I know most members supporting the government disagreed with that interpretation, and a similar view was taken by several members on this side.
I was particularly concerned because the veterans affairs committee had always been one in which no political lines were drawn, and in which discussions were open and free. We could discuss all phases of veterans legislation. I think the thin edge of the wedge was driven in by the government through the wording of the resolution. We were placed in a position where lines could be drawn-and they were drawn.
That committee was not the free and easy non-political committee in which I had served for several years. The terms of reference were the source of our difficulties. Very early in our deliberations the hon. member for Royal asked support of a motion stating that the terms of reference were not broad enough, and hon. members had the opportunity to vote for that amendment. It stated, in effect, that item 650 be not reported now, but that the committee recommend to the government the broadening of our terms of reference. Any hon. member who rises in his place today and says he thought the terms of reference were too narrow had at that time the opportunity, without disturbing any of the machinery of the committee, to support the amendment and to test the government as to whether it would permit the broadening of the terms of reference so that we could decide on a basic increase in pensions and war veterans allowances, and other items that greatly needed amendment. The amendment was not accepted, although I thought it made a fair and reasonable request.
This item 650 is disturbing to the Legion. Every member of the committee will have to admit that the executive heads of that organization were not only critical but that, this time, they were in a bad mood. The language of their brief so indicated, as did the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before us.
<5508	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs
It is a mistake for any body in Canada, whether it be a provincial or a federal government or any other organization having to do with veterans, to antagonize the Legion to the extent they were antagonized. I did not think item 650 should have been placed before the committee. If the government intended to supplement pensions of unemployable veterans it should have done so through a regular bill in the house which could have been discussed here and passed. When it placed the vote before the committee it definitely sowed the seed in the mind of veterans organizations that such procedure was to become part of veterans legislation and that it was going to take the place of over-all increases in basic pension. I do not think it should have gone to the committee.
I believe that even at this stage the government would be well advised to consider increasing the basic pension. We do not have to have a lot of experts with maps and figures and all that sort of thing. The government has that information at its fingertips. I listened to a report from the welfare organization, and I believe it was one of the best analyses I have ever heard. It was airtight and factual, and indicated clearly that they are doing a good job-something which was not generally known.
The government is not in a position to say, "We will consider the matter at the fall session." The fact is we have been considering it for two months and all we have succeeded in doing is to get ourselves in a worse tangle. I strongly suggest to the minister not to leave the combat veteran in that state of mind. The executive of the Canadian Legion are pretty reasonable and fair people and they should not be left in the state of mind in which they are today. The government has the briefs they submitted and must have gone over them. That is what convinces the Legion that this supplement is going to take the place of an over-all increase in the pension.
This vote of $2 million is for payments to unemployable veterans who can relate their unemployability to their pensionable disability. I said in the house on several occasions, as I did in the committee, that there is a place for this kind of legislation. Then, with regard to the test that is to be made, it is not right to say that it is a means test because that is over-simplification. Everyone in this country understands a means test to mean that some inspector comes in, takes a look at your kitchen and asks whether you have enough to eat, or whether you have enough income. That is not what happens with these unemployability supplements. You have to get a medical certificate and so on.


I have a picture of what is going to happen in my end of the country. First, the applicant will have to get in touch with someone in the Halifax office to get an application form. That will be sent up and the welfare branch in Sydney will be told to look up Jim Smith. The inspector will go and take a look at Jim Smith and will tell him that he must get a medical certificate showing that he is totally unemployable. In my part of the country a man could be receiving a ten per cent disability pension and be one hundred per cent unemployable as far as working in the coal mines or steel plant is concerned. You cannot get employment there unless you are able to pass a medical test. That man is a ten per cent disability pensioner but he is totally unemployable as far as those plants are concerned.
I have heard the hon. member for Lanark talk about this problem and he is quite right. The same would apply to many others in the heavy industry sections of the country. They are going to be handicapped under this legislation which starts at 35 per cent disability. Instead of this supplementary allowance beginning at 35 per cent and working up to 100 per cent, it should be applied to the five, ten or fifteen per cent disability, the man who cannot be employed in these different areas because of his service disability.
The government has had sufficient time to consider the Legion's briefs since last fall, and the one that was presented to the committee. They used pretty tough language in the last one. It is not so much a brief as a straight accusation of manipulation behind the scenes to have this small supplement take the place of an over-all increase. That may not be correct, but the minister should get up and say that it is not the intention of the government to do that. That is the frame of mind in which the Legion representatives are at the present time. I have received a number of strongly worded telegrams, from my part of the country demanding that we oppose these supplemental benefits and go after an over-all increase in pension as requested by the Legion.
It is a perfectly reasonable request. If the government pay what the Legion asks by way of basic increase in pension the pensioner will just be left in the position in which he was in 1948. Inflation is still wiping out what was done for the pensioner in 1948. Practically every industry in this country has recognized the inflationary trend during the last two years and in many cases have signed agreements with their employees containing escalator clauses which provide that wages will go up with the cost of living.
JUNE 22, 19&X
Surely the government is just as interested in the veterans who fought to maintain our institutions in two world wars as General Motors are interested in the men on the assembly line, or as the steel plants are interested in their employees. If it is reasonable to have an escalator clause in those industrial agreements, it is just as reasonable for the government to wipe out the present deficit in the pension cheque which was created, not by the veteran but by the government refusing to institute proper controls to maintain reasonable price levels. The basis of everything we are discussing at the present time lies in the fact that proper price controls were not instituted. Unless something is done to control prices the upward spiral will continue and this argument will still be presented. That will be the result unless steps are taken to curb inflation.
I talked so much in the committee that I became allergic to this matter and I would not be talking this afternoon except that I was provoked by the hon. member for Spadina. I ask the minister to take another look at war veterans allowances. When a recipient of war veterans allowances reaches the age of 70 years he is not permitted to have the same income as could be received by an old age pensioner. He receives $840 a year as veterans allowance, but an old age pensioner could receive up to $1,080 per year with his permissible earnings. I took up a case of this kind with the department and was told that this man could not receive any old age pension because the act provided that that could not be done. Why not allow such a man to have as much of the old age pension as would bring him up to the total permissible earnings and pension of an old age pensioner? I think the minister will agree that that kind of thing should be changed.
There is another rank piece of discrimination in the War Veterans Allowance Act that affects the widows of imperial veterans. The provision is that a widow must have twenty years' residence in this country, but it may happen that an imperial veteran may die after having spent only nineteen years in the country. His widow would not be entitled to an allowance under the act. There are not many cases like that and not much money is involved, but it is discrimination. The widow of John Jones may live next door to the widow of Jim Smith; one receives a pension and the other does not because her husband died before he had been living in the country twenty years. Little irritations like that should be ironed out.
I am leaving these thoughts with the minister and strongly suggest that he have
Supply-Veterans Affairs another look at his department to see what can be done. If the money cannot be provided by this vote, he could bring in a supplementary estimate.


Mr. Adamson:: I merely want to add my voice to the protest that has been made by hon. members of this party with respect to the war veterans allowance and other matters.
I was not a member of the committee this year, and I do not propose to repeat in any way what has been said by the hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Lanark, the hon. member for Calgary East, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and others who have spoken. I also wish to agree with a considerable portion of what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, especially his remarks with respect to heavy industries. So far as heavy industry is concerned today, steel mills and heavy industries particularly cannot employ people with disabilities because of the speed at which modern machinery runs, and the heavy and intensive work which has to be done.
As I said, I want to add my voice to the protest with regard to the subsidiary earnings allowed under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and I do so for two reasons. The first reason has to do with the matter of justice to the recipients of these allowances who are being seriously squeezed by the inflationary pressure they have to bear. Second, I do so for the economic good of the country. If there ever was a time when every bit of useful work that anybody can do should be done to assist the economy of Canada in these inflationary days, now is that time. We see the Minister of Finance going around asking people to work forty minutes more a day. Here we have people who are willing to work not only for forty minutes but for a great deal more per day, and they are precluded from doing so because of the regulations of the act.
There is a great shortage of what used to be called casual labour. In our present modern economy casual labour is a most important part of the economic life of the country, not only in agriculture but also in industry and in the ordinary life of our major cities. I think it is not only a great injustice that these men are not allowed to earn more than they are but it is doing a great disservice to the country as a whole.


Mr. Jones:: I should not like this item to pass without some mention of the plight of at least 12,000 pensioners in this country who, so far as the speakers this afternoon are concerned, have been more or less overlooked. I refer to the plight of the imperial veterans which is quite serious. When these people came here they never anticipated the drastic devaluation that took place in the pound
4510	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs sterling. Neither did they anticipate the difficulty of getting money from the old country, particularly those who have inherited capital, small sums of money, or possibly in some cases large sums. Neither did they anticipate the present high cost of living with relation to the imperial pension that they receive.
Naturally the difficulties they are faced with are beyond their control, and therefore they look to the Canadian government to do something for them. While we call these veterans imperials they are Canadian citizens, and to my mind they are entitled to all the benefits accruing to all other Canadian citizens whether they be veterans or civilians. This point of view is maintained by the members of the Canadian Legion or, in other words, by all Canadian veterans. They believe that the imperial veterans should be treated in the same way that they are. Many of these veterans were encouraged by the government to come out to Canada as immigrants in the early days. They were actually invited to take part in the development of land under the Soldier Settlement Act, and some of them did. I claim that the record of the imperial veterans in Canada is a good one both from the standpoint of their contribution toward the national economy through their skill and labour and in their contribution to our social and cultural life through their homes and their participation in our community welfare.
Many of them came to Canada in 1920 when the value of the pound was about $4.86. As I mentioned, they had no reason to anticipate any drastic change taking place. They felt that up to that time the pound had been fairly stable and would continue to be stable. Naturally they find themselves in this plight today. Not only do I wish to emphasize the fact that they are good Canadian citizens and are entitled to the same treatment as Canadian veterans, but many of them had sons fighting in the last war. I should like to place before the house what the imperial veterans seek from the government, and I shall refer mainly to the brief prepared by the imperial veterans action committee in Vancouver. First of all they ask for the establishment of a standing parliamentary committee on veterans affairs to include, if possible, members of the imperial forces or at least someone on that committee conversant with the problems facing imperial veterans. They also submit that power should be given to the committee to deal with matters affecting imperial veterans and to recommend to the British and Canadian governments solutions for their problems.


Then they recommend that consideration be given to the widows of imperial veterans, particularly those referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, whose husbands died before the qualifying period. Then there are three other requests that I should like to mention, and the first has to do with income tax. In their brief they say:
Service pensions, other than disability pensions, are taxed in Britain, and if such pension is supplemented by earnings in Canada, the pensioner takes a double blow due to devaluation of the pound. Firstly he receives less dollar pension, and also the income tax deducted in Britain from his pension, which is assessed on his total earnings from Canada as well as his pension income, makes his tax the greater owing to an exaggerated sterling income when for purposes of assessment his Canadian income is converted to sterling.
This situation has been relieved between Great Britain and New Zealand and Great Britain and Australia. They have arranged for the imperial to be given the choice of paying his income tax either on the British basis or on the Canadian basis. Naturally imperials who live in Canada are Canadian citizens and they would prefer to pay taxes in the country in which they are residing. Another point they raise has to do with an appeal tribunal. They say that an appeal tribunal should be set up to deal with the 11,177 imperial pensioners living in Canada. In their brief they say:
In the United Kingdom an appeals division has been set up for such pensioners resident in Britain. The staff of this is lay and medical. This division has both entitlement and assessment tribunals. It is urged that such tribunals should be set up in Canada to hear such appeals of disability pensioners resident in Canada in co-operation with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Then they also refer to hospitalization and say:
It is urged that authority should be vested in the British ministry representative in Ottawa, so that he can deal with the matter of admittance to hospital of Canadian born veterans who served with the imperials, and imperials resident in Canada before world war I, and that they should be on the same footing as regards treatment in D.V.A. hospitals as veterans who served in the Canadian forces. Also reciprocal treatment to be given as between Canadians resident in Britain and imperials resident in Canada.
Briefly that sets forth what the imperial veterans would like to have. They would like to be on the same basis as Canadian veterans. If a standing committee is not to be set up to look after all veterans affairs, I would urge that at least a special committee be set up immediately to investigate the claims made by the imperial veterans and to try to bring about some remedy. I know the word "imperial" suggests someone alien to the country, but that is not the case. In many instances these men are Canadians who joined the imperial forces. Many of them

were young men who became impatient with the progress made in Canada and joined the air force in Britain in both the first and second world wars. They are actually Canadian, although we call them imperial veterans. Others entered this country in good faith to help develop the country, after contributing their services in the first war. They have been good citizens; they are your neighbours and my neighbours. They are entitled to the same respect, the same treatment and the same courteous service that the Canadian veteran receives from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I would urge the minister to give consideration to the setting up of a committee to ascertain what can be done to relieve the tense situation in which these men find themselves owing to the nature of the currency difficulties between the two countries.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: I had not intended to speak on this matter, but in view of some of the remarks made which left the impression that the committee on veterans affairs was made up of youthful members who did not know anything, were simply hoodwinked and led by the older members of the committee, I felt I must make -some reply. Many of the older members on that committee were members of the opposition. The member for Acadia particularly stressed his experience on the committee, as did the member for Vancouver-Quadra. Some of us who were the youthful members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, were in veterans organizations before they ever got into the committee. In the days of the old army and navy veterans there was not even a great war veterans association like the Legion. Some of us were in all of those organizations, and have studied this matter of pensions. It is a reflection on some of the older veterans who were in France with the first outfit to say that we sat in the veterans affairs committee and cheerfully acquiesced in everything that was done.
As a matter of fact I was greatly surprised to see the committee divide on party lines. I did not think they would divide at all, but we found the Conservatives blocking things by introducing motion after motion. I intend to be very brief in dealing with this matter. Members have mentioned certain telegrams that they received from their constituencies. Although there are eight branches of the Legion in my constituency I have not received one telegram or one letter protesting the actions of that committee or the government. I have spoken to dozens of returned men in this house who have given me the same answer, that they have not received any telegrams. But they said we had better not mention it or we will get
Supply-Veterans Affairs some telegrams. I think the minister should know that. I did receive one telegram from the secretary of the Saskatchewan Legion command in Regina. It reads:
Saskatchewan command Canadian Legion requests your support of brief presented to parliamentary committee on veterans affairs provided such increase will assure adequate standard of living for unemployed pensioners.
That is all it said. It was sent on June 8, and that is the only telegram I received from the province of Saskatchewan. Now, that telegram is diametrically opposite to the submission that was finally made to us by the Legion representative. I do not know what has come over the Canadian Legion dominion command. I am not going to quote the editorial appearing in The Legionary because most of the members have seen it. It casts reflection upon members of the government, many of whom have had brilliant service overseas. The article is nothing more or less than a scathing, incorrect and unfair article which is below the prestige of the former Canadian Legion paper. I have taken it ever since it started. But if party politics enters the Canadian Legion I am going to tell you, as one of the most experienced men in the Jifie of veterans organizations ini the Dominion of Canada, the Legion will be smashed as quickly as that happens. We do not want politics in it at all.
The statement has been made here, in connection with the submissions made to the committee, that these organizations were unanimously behind everything the Legion representatives said, and were against the action of the government in voting this $2 million or more as the nature of the case may require. In connection with the $2 million vote I would point out, as has been pointed out by the member for Spadina, that whatever more is required under that vote can be provided. Under that vote a veteran who actually needs help is the one who is going to get it. He is going to get more help than if the pensions were increased right across the board in accordance with the increased cost of living. The man who actually needs the help is going to get more under the government proposal than he would if we had followed out the suggestion of the Conservative members of that committee. Remember that their motion was noi moved until June 7, and that motion would have referred this whole thing back to the house. If we had argued in here as long as w>e did in. committee, the needy veterans who will get more under this government proposal would never have received anything. The session would have closed before we finished the argument.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
These other eight organizations, other than the Canadian Legion, did not express dissatisfaction with the government's attitude on this particular vote. Here is what the head of the organization, Major Wickens, said. He has been well-known to me for many years, and is a splendid gentleman even if he is a Conservative. This is what he said;:


Frank Exton Lennard: He is a Liberal.


Alan Carl Stewart: Excuse me, I know Saskatchewan politics better than you ever did. I know that Mr. Wickens is a Conservative, and always has been. You had better check up your own party; that is why you do not win seats.


Frank Exton Lennard: Just wait until the next time.


Alan Carl Stewart: We have always
been waiting for the next time. This is what appears at page 114 of the committee evidence:


Mr. McMillan:: I understand it has been the feeling of the meeting that they support in the most part the submissions in the Canadian Legion brief?
The Witness: That is right.


William Hector McMillan: Except they differ in some details. What are the details?
That is the detail on which these eight organizations disagreed with the Canadian Legion.
The Witness: Well, the detail we have not considered extensively Mr. Chairman, and Doctor McMillan. There were some observations about means test applicable to this unemployability allowance, but the chairman of the pension commission and the deputy minister were kind enough to place themselves at our disposal for the best part of an hour this morning, and, in discussing the matter, they gave us a very informative illustration of how the unemployability allowance is going to operate. We came to the conclusion that the observations which the Legion made about this being in effect the introduction of a means test in pensions were not tenable. There were other minor details of that kind.
Then again at the same session of the committee, page 119 of the proceedings, the chairman asked the representative of the eight veterans organizations this question:
Are there any other questions, gentlemen? I shall now take the liberty since we have our officials here, of turning the tables on the committee, and saying that particularly in view of the hitherto lack of specific knowledge revolving around this $2 million supplement, that if any of the members of the delegation have any uncertainty in their minds respecting what is set forth in this, that it would be acceptable to the committee that they should ask questions of them.
Major Wickens has told us that they had the advantage of a consultation this morning with the senior officers of the department. We have a few minutes left and if the committee concurs, I think it would be in order. It should be helpful, and some points might be clarified.
The Witness:	Mr. Chairman, practically every
member of our delegation was present at that conference this morning. We are very much indebted to the two officers for the very frank session we had with them.


The Chairman:: If you are satisfied, I am.

Apparently that committee was satisfied. I would judge so from those remarks. I think most of us can understand English, and you can put any construction you like on that. But I would judge that that committee representing eight organizations, after hearing officers of the department, were satisfied that this was not an introduction of the means test and that they were satisfied that the needy veterans were going to get $2 million or whatever amount would be needed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They were not satisfied.


Alan Carl Stewart: You were not on the committee and you do not speak for the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was on the committee.


Alan Carl Stewart: You do not speak for that committee representing those veterans. In addition to that, you are very much biased. That is something which is more important.
Then we met again, Mr. Chairman, on June 6; and it was not until June 6 that there was any motion by the Conservative opposition to refer this matter back to the house.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that if the hon. member will refer to the proceedings of May 31, he will find that a motion was made in that meeting of the committee by the hon. member for Royal.


Alan Carl Stewart: Yes. I am going to point out to my hon. friend that they moved, on June 6, a motion referring the matter back to this house. That motion was made on June 6, as I said, and it was amended by the hon. member for Kingston City, a Liberal. He added to the motion these words:
With the recommendation that the government give further consideration to the representations submitted to the government and to the committee, that the basic rate of pensions for all pensioners under the Pension Act should be increased;
That was his motion. The Liberal members on that committee were then in this position. They said: We are going to accept the government proposal of $2 million or whatever amount is needed to take care of these veterans who, through disability, cannot work at all and who will get more under the government proposal than they would get through an increase of pension based on the increased cost of living in the last few years. They will get more. In turn we are suggesting to the government that, as to increasing pensions clean across the board, the government should give the matter further consideration. Obviously at this session of parliament, and at that late date, no other procedure could be taken, and the government could not possibly deal with the

situation, having regard to the arguments that go on in this chamber on matters of minor importance and which take day after day to settle. That was the attitude of the so-called young Liberal members sitting on this committee who apparently did not know anything about veterans affairs.
I am going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that no doubt the government will give consideration to that committee's report. But I am going to point out that the opposition, all of them, voted against that motion. If the opposition had carried the motion they introduced on June 6, these veterans who need this $2 million or whatever they get-the really needy veterans-would not get anything until the next session of parliament. The Liberal members on that committee, by their action, are ensuring that the veterans who actually need assistance will get it. Those of us who are veterans of long standing and are able to earn enough to get along are not complaining much about the situation. As I have stated, in the constituency that I represent, with eight branches of the Legion in it, unless you go out and stir them up politically, there is no complaint. I have not received one wire or one communication from them; and there are many other hon. members in the committee who are in the same position. The job of the members of this committee and of the veterans in this committee is to take care of these veterans. Some of us were badly wounded but are still able to earn a living. But let us take care of these fellows-and that is what this provision does-who cannot work at all and who were wounded. We take care of them until next session. As to what happens at the next session, we will deal with that matter then.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Yorkton has left the inference with the committee that the national council of veterans had approved this vote of $2 million.


Alan Carl Stewart: I read what was
said.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to read to the
committee from the evidence given by a famous Canadian padre; I refer to Colonel the Reverend S. E. Lambert, who has been president of War Amputations of Canada for thirty-two years.


Alan Carl Stewart: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: The padre was one of the
leaders of this delegation from the national council and his statement will show how much accuracy there is in and how much dependence can be placed upon the statement made by the hon. member for Yorkton.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Alan Carl Stewart: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to deal with the matter now. This is not contradicting a statement made by me, because the statement I read was after this statement was made and completely after-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. This is
not a question of privilege. The hon. member will realize that if he wants to explain a part of his speech which has been misunderstood by another hon. member, or if he wants to correct what he has said, he must not do so by interrupting the hon. member who has the floor.


Alan Carl Stewart: All right.


Howard Charles Green: I think the impression left
by the hon. member for Yorkton is entirely out of accord with the facts. What I am about to read is from the statement of Padre Lambert who could not be accused of partisanship in any way, shape or form, and who, right through the years, has been one of the most responsible leaders of Canadian veterans. He himself was badly wounded. As reported at page 111 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee, Padre Lambert said:
You bring in this supplementary allowance; it is not a bill but it is some kind of an estimate, and we consider this as another contribution to the poverty of the veterans, I would say, and we do not like that. We like to have things by right, and pensions are by right.
Then further down on the page he said:
After all we were given the job, in co-operation with the government and the Department of Veterans Affairs, to take these disabled fellows as they came back from two wars and try and fit them in some place, and that is what we have tried to do. Our job in our organization has been to fit them-fragments from the wars-into places where they can still continue their service and be able to do a little job. Now, that is what we have tried to do and have tried to do it well, and most of them by luck and by the kindness of the dominion government and the provincial governments and civic governments and by the graces of good firms, have been fitted into places where they can maintain a very high standard of self-respect at least. I do not know what you want to make them. If you want to make them all paupers, go ahead. We do not like it; we are not approving of it anyway. That is how the amps feel about it. We are talking to you about fighting men, about men who have been in contact with the enemy in two wars and now in three wars, and I feel somehow that Canada owes them a great deal more than she thinks she does. We are trying to get them out of the poverty class. We are trying to keep them sweet and kindly in this country and this suggestion is something that makes me see red, and I hate to see red, I really do. I consider myself one of the patriots of the country and I try to perpetuate the patriotism that made these veterans go to war. I feel we have been let down pretty badly.
Then further on he said:
We do not want any handouts. As far as I am concerned you can keep it, but make the basic

Supply-Veterans Affairs rate what it should be and then we will know where we stand. That is how we [eel about it. If you base the thing on the cost of living and we find that the cost of living is away up then the proper thing to do is to raise it in accordance with the cost of living figure.
Then one other point made by the hon. member for Yorkton. He tried to prove that the members of the official opposition had acted too late for anything to be done at this session. As he knows, the members of all parties in the opposition acted together in their protest against this government policy. It was not a matter of only one opposition party. On May 31 the hon. member for Royal moved an amendment to the effect:
That item 650 do not now carry but that this committee request the house that it be given instructions to consider the basic rates of pensions and the War Veterans Allowance Act and make recommendations in reference thereto.
That amendment was voted down on the same day, May 31, with all of the opposition members voting for the amendment, together with the hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Then, at the next meeting, which was on June 5, there was an amendment by the hon. member for Kingston City, with the recommendation that the government consider the briefs of veterans bodies again; and rather than delay matters, the hon. member for Nanaimo moved an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Kingston City to the effect that:
The government give consideration to introducing legislation during the present session of parliament which will give effect to the representations submitted to the government and to the committee that the basic rate of pensions for all pensioners under the Pension Act should be increased.
That amendment, which was urging speed, and would have forced action by the government at this present session on the question of the basic pension, was voted down by the government members at the next sitting of the committee.


Alan Carl Stewart: I have to correct my hon. friend again. He has quoted from the Reverend Mr. Lambert at page 111 of the proceedings, but following what he said the head dominion president of the army, navy and air force veterans in Canada, Major A. J. Wickens, at page 114, and following the statement that my hon. friend has read, made the statement that I quoted to the committee in which he said in effect that they were more or less satisfied that this was not a means test, and that the needy would be taken care of.


Victor Quelch: Just to keep the record straight I should like to correct the statement made by the hon. member for Yorkton. He referred to the evidence of Mr. Wickens. He said


he knew him quite well, and stated that he was a Conservative. He tried to leave the impression that politics was being played. I want to quote from the statement of Mr. Wickens, as found at page 326 of the evidence of April 23, 1948, I quote:
There is a danger of a division, perhaps not in this committee, but on the floor of the house, being made on straight party lines. Perhaps I should not say this, but I am going to say it. I, for one, am not a politician. I have been a supporter of the present government.


Alan Carl Stewart: He was not, a few years ago.


Victor Quelch: That shows that he was not a Conservative but a Liberal.


Mr. Higgins:: I will be very brief. I wish to read a telegram which I have received from the Newfoundland command of the Canadian Legion. I believe all other Newfoundland members have received the same telegram. It reads as follows:
Newfoundland command Canadian Legion would greatly appreciate your favourable consideration at present session of recommendation of special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs that further consideration be given to possibility of granting increase in basic rate of war pensions. Also strongly urge support of Legion's request for increase in war veterans allowance.


Alan Carl Stewart: What is the date of that?


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is dated June 9, and signed by Mr. W. R. Martin, provincial secretary.
I am not going to add to that except to say that I endorse it very strongly, and I do wish to associate myself with all that has been said by previous speakers of the opposition party.


Mr. Pouliot:: Before the item carries I want to draw the attention of the minister to a few files of disabled returned men who have written to me after I complained about the pension commission in this house. They are from various parts of the country. Each case is authentic. I understand that the pension commission has the right of life and death over the veterans.
I want to bring the attention of the minister to these cases. I am in full sympathy with him, and I know very well that he will understand the problems of these returned men whom he knew in a theatre of war during the last war. There is the case of Jean-Paul F. Guay, Civic hospital, veterans' pavilion, pension No. 804,477. He is thirty years of age. He is a law student. His service was from August 28, 1939, to June, 1946. He was wounded in the right ankle. He had a five per cent pension, $4.70 a month. In August, 1948, heart trouble developed. He has been in hospital since. Three applications for pension were turned down. I do not

belong to the Canadian Legion, but I am in full sympathy with these men, and when I submitted their grievances to the house this is one gentleman who wrote me. He is thirty years of age, and is in hospital probably for the rest of his life. I give the file to the minister so that he can have a look at it.
Now there is P. L. Hyde of 619 Bid well Street, Vancouver, a veteran of both wars; eight years' active service, 75 per cent incapacitated. He wants to know the details of class "V" medical treatment. This is personal correspondence. I cannot read the whole letter of the gentleman to the house, but I have no objection to showing it to the minister, and I hope that in due course he will answer the questions which are in the letter, and I will be satisfied with a private answer.
Now, this is a case in which I have been very much interested for a long time. It is the case of Arthur Villeneuve, 1736 East 32nd Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia. His letter too is of a personal character, but I have no objection to giving a copy to the minister. After a long struggle he succeeded in having 100 per cent pension, which was a peculiar case. I have another one from Mr. Keane, Victoria branch, Canadian Pensioners Association of the Great Wars Incorporated, 131 Pemberton Building, Victoria, British Columbia:
J. F. Pouliot, Esq., M.P. for Temiscouata,
The House of Commons,
Ottawa,
Dear Sir,
Your remarks as made in the House of Commons at Ottawa and appearing on page 1939 of Hansard, concerning veterans affairs, are shared by all of us here.
We know only too well as we have been doing this work since 1922 that you have spoken the blind truth, and am very glad that you have done so.
Excuse typewritten errors as I seem to always do them.
Members of this association send you their kindest regards.
I am very glad to see that there is a real champion of their interests in the house. We thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Canadian Pensioners Association R. C. Keane, Honorary Secretary
Then there is the case of Mr. Frank Leary, 898,048, ward 3, north, Westminster hospital, London, Ontario; served overseas; crippled; seven years in different veterans hospitals. Veterans are the guinea pigs of the medical profession. Very unfortunate-but I do not say it, I just repeat it.
Now we have Rev. Roy MacDonald, Marine and Taylor, White Rock, British Columbia. He sent me a clipping from the Vancouver Province repeating what I had said years
Supply-Veterans Affairs ago, that a pension is a right and not a charity, and that an allowance is a charity and does not come from a right. And the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra must remember I have said it many times in the house.


Howard Charles Green: I agree.


Jean-François Pouliot: He has also said it. That is the tenor of the article of the Vancouver Province which was sent to me by the Rev. Roy MacDonald. It is a personal letter which I give to the minister for his information.
Now, here is a letter from Mr. H. A. Ross, veteran, Fleming, Saskatchewan; ex-Princess Pat. He is a veteran of both wars; chairman of grievance and pension committee, taking his case as a test case. He received a bill for $33.50 for medical services, although called and instructed by D.V.A. to get treatment. There are many cases like that, and I will come to them later.
Now there is the case of Mr. John M. Pringle, L-12934, Froude, Saskatchewan; accepted as A-l April, 1940; proceeded overseas, June 1941; went to hospital overseas with bronchial pneumonia and arthritis of the spine; the fall of 1941 placed in category C-2; 1944 returned to Canada and discharged unfit for service; pension refused; C.P.C. says, "Arthritis condition pre-existing and not aggravated."
There are so many cases like that; but perhaps members of the committee would not listen to me if I quoted only cases from the province of Quebec. That is why I brought their attention to cases mostly outside of Quebec from veterans who are not satisfied with the way they have been treated by the C.P.C., otherwise known as the Canadian pension commission.
Now there is the case of Herbert Button, 639871-D, Ottawa; veteran, world war I; died from war injury. Mrs. Button, semiparalysed, received no pension. Evidence was here classified by C.P.C. as contradictory because one man stated Mr. Button had been hit on the head with a hand grenade and another that he had been blown up and buried. He could have sustained both injuries; but because they did not agree on the injury that caused his death, the widow has no pension. It is a very bad case, apparently. I worked on the case with the previous minister, and I did not succeed on account of the hard-headed commission.
Now there is the case of Ralph Jones, New Brunswick-and I take them as they come. This is G-52067, Cork Station, York county, New Brunswick; served overseas from May, 1944, to October, 1945, and escaped form Ste. Anne de Bellevue hospital February 9,

Supply-Veterans Affairs 1948. His wife has not heard from him since. Is he dead or alive? Mrs. Jones does not believe the information she has had about her husband is accurate. Could she claim a pension if he is dead? No one knows.
Then there is the case of Charles Bohan, 335807, Bath, New Brunswick; medically unfit for hard work. Enlisted April 16, 1916; discharged March, 1919; served in England and France; two years overseas; six months in hospital; received $12 a month pension. Wants question put on the order paper about the pension tribunal, 1930-33. For a long time they had some trouble with the pension tribunal.
Then there is the case of P. M. Tamlyn, Lancaster hospital, Saint John, New Brunswick; wants a series of questions asked of the government. The letter is here and I will pass it over to the minister who will read it in due course-and I hope he will answer those letters, privately, to me, so I can forward his answers to that gentleman.
Then, Mrs. H. M. Hayward, Blackville. New Brunswick, who wrote me on May 28,-
As I said in my former letter, I had no axe to grind in writing you-
She received a pension of $75 a month. Then she says:
But your opinion of many of the doctors at the veterans hospitals was so right and so exactly described the case of my husband that I felt I just had to write and let you know.
Then there is the case of Roy Clyde, 59172, Peninsula, Gaspe county; B.P.C. No. 141424-fifty-five years of age; lost right eye in a theatre of war; forty per cent pension; buried three times by enemy shells; fifteen per cent shock. C.P.C. says he is not entitled to automatic raise for 55-year-old 50 per cent pensioners, because his pension is 40 per cent for direct action and 15 per cent for other conditions. His shock is due to the fact that he was buried three times by enemy shells. They say it was not direct action. This is a case I would like to have redressed.
Then there is the case of P. Roberge, 1169 St. Georges, Montreal. Up to April 5, he received $40 a month veterans allowance for services rendered in an actual theatre of war. This is not a loan, according to the law. He has been working since April 6; has been informed that the surplus of $600 a year that he earns will be deducted from future allowance. He expects to earn $1,800 this year; will owe the allowance board $1,200, which means he will be penalized for thirty months at $40 a month. A few beneficiaries of this allowance who have worked have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for such reimbursement. Mr. Roberge would like this law changed to correct such an anomaly. [Mr. Pouliot.l

The next is the case of Edouard Simard, D-l 10853, Montreal. He suffered from arteriosclerosis of the heart with angina pectoris. He was treated in hospital-up until now unsuccessful in his application for a pension.
Then there is the case of P. A. Levert, D-114821; St. Aime sur Richelieu. This man is a son of a veteran, he has five dependents and is a total invalid. He receives $36.50 from D.V.A. Report of Dr. H. Martel of Sorel is corroborated by many well known doctors that Levert is suffering from: 1. Painful umbilical hernia; 2. Chronic bronchitis with emphysema and enlarged heart; 3. Sciatica, right side; 4. Chronic arthritis of the right knee. He says his case has been aggravated by the D.V.A. doctors. He wants the law changed to permit veterans to choose their own doctors and hospitals and have them paid by the D.V.A.
Then the next is J. M. Fontaine, of 52A Fournier, Drummondville, Quebec. He complains about the Hopital de la Reine Marie, Montreal, in which he spent three months. He says that the veterans are used as guinea pigs of the medical profession.
I know this medical officer very well and I knew him when he was in charge of the soldiers at Quebec city. He was the son-inlaw of a former mayor. He knew what the war was because he went to England on a Cook's tour that lasted one, two or three months. He was then qualified for overseas preference. The troubles I had with him during the war were something awful and I cannot understand how he has been successful in pulling the strings to get his promotion to Montreal. The soldiers suffered at his hands.
This soldier complains about the Queen Mary hospital, Montreal, because they are using the veterans as guinea pigs for the medical profession. I do not blame all the doctors, but hon. members who are here today must remember the case I made against the army doctors who treated the soldiers like cattle during the last war. They used to put men who were completely disabled in category A.
I asked Colonel Desrosiers, the former deputy minister of national defence, to look after these cases. Everyone knows that the actual Minister of Veterans Affairs did a lot to help the soldiers when he was parliamentary assistant to the minister of national defence. I must pay a tribute to him and to Bill Macdonald of Halifax who did so much to help those soldiers whose cases were brought before the army doctors at the time.
Fontaine entered the hospital with a disjointed foot; he had three operations and now has a permanently incapacitated foot, knee

and hip. He was told at 35 McGill street that he will never receive help from them because he had written to the minister of pensions about the treatment he received at the said hospital. I know that the minister is broadminded and will not refuse to study the cases of these men that I am bringing to his attention. We have a minister to whom we can speak and we must speak to him because the pension commission is doing nothing to help these soldiers who are in distress.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the hon, gentleman to keep quiet. I am not speaking for myself,
I am speaking on behalf of men I have never met. I am speaking on behalf of men who have been in the army and who deserve the consideration of this committee as well as of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I do not say that with any antagonistic disposition.
I say that because I cannot understand when there is an organization to protect men who have been disabled in a theatre of war, whether all these facts are correct or not, whether there are shades of difference, when they deserve the sympathy of everyone, why these cases cannot be remedied. I took the trouble to come here today from the most beautiful country in the world in order to defend their cases. I want to be listened to and those who are not interested may go out. If someone says "Order" I will speak for hours more. I am not going to be terrorized by anyone. There is no one who will terrorize me. The other day I gave evidence that the minister of external affairs could not succeed in terrorizing me, nor could his deputy minister succeed in terrorizing me by having me called an isolationist by a picayune journalist of Ottawa. I am not going to be terrorized by anyone because these cases deserve the utmost consideration.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am going to argue these
cases here in the committee.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know there are generals and brigadiers all over the country, but I am not speaking for them. I speak for those who are forgotten. I speak for the poor devils who must have someone to defend their cases. I do not want to see the injustices of the last war committed again, otherwise no one will enlist. I want everyone's case redressed. I am presenting these cases because I have confidence in the minister. I have no confidence in the pension commission or in the veterans allowance board. I have said so before, and I repeat it. I will say that again in my own part of the country and everywhere I have an opportunity to speak. I
Supply-Veterans Affairs think they should be fired. But I have confidence in the minister and that is why I am laying these cases before him. There is not one good man on the pension commission; there is not one good man on the veterans allowance board. They pay no attention to the sufferings of these men who deserve every consideration possible.
The next is Lieutenant J. O. Girard PSN 696-J, CCP 219381, Mat. 11, 417253, 520184 ASC. I suggest that a man with such numbers on his file should be entitled to something because there must have been many bureaucrats who have put their signatures on the different pages. His file must be extensive. This man was a veteran of both wars and is too old to get a job. His pension is inadequate. It was established at 20 per cent in 1943 and should have been 100 per cent. He had had six sicknesses. The C.P.C. says that his state of health was bad when he enlisted for the second time. He is asking for an allowance.
If his state of health was bad when he enlisted for the second time the fact remains that he was accepted by the army doctors. Probably he was one of those who were put in category A when suffering from disabilities which should have kept them out of the service.
The next is Alcide Cimon, E-62603, Despin-assy, Abitibi East, formerly of Temiscouata. When this man was in the army he tried to be discharged on account of his health but the army always insisted that he was A-l. When he was discharged he was classified as *category E. He complains about not receiving any replies to his letters to D.V.A. He wants a pension.
These men think they are gods. We cannot write to them. We cannot speak to them. They are there and they never make mistakes. The same thing is true of all bureaucrats in Ottawa. They will never admit that they make errors. They are infallible. They are like justice with scales in her hands, but they never give justice to anyone. They simply look powerful and astonished.
The next is Jean Rioux, C-76187, St. Medard. This man is an invalid and unable to work. He earned $97 in 1950 and received $27.90 in April to buy clothing. He was fortunate in getting something, as very few do.
Then there is E-621901. I hope this name will not be mentioned. I will give the note to the minister because it is a very sad case. I will describe him by the reference "E-621-901". He was called under the N.R.M.A. He did not report, was arrested and spent one month in prison at Riviere du Loup. He was accepted in the army and sent overseas without the knowledge of his family.
4518	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs He was two years overseas and was discharged for insanity in 1943 at 23 years of age. In 1933 he was treated by Dr. Alphonse Couturier of Riviere du Loup for dementia praecox. He was ill until May, 1934, and had frequent relapses from 1933 to 1943. Here is a man who did not have his mind. Yet he was accepted and classified grade A by doctors who should have been sent to the asylum in his place. He was in the war for two years, and now they say that he suffers from dementia praecox. It is impossible to get anything for him. The almighties of the pension board have decided that he should not have anything.
I come now to a very sad case that I know very well. It is the case of a man who was in the Chaudiere regiment. His name is Paul Desbiens, E-6133, of Riviere du Loup. He was awarded the military medal and was wounded in the spine. He went from hospital to hospital while overseas and is still suffering. He has a small pension. I have a file about two inches thick concerning him.
I tried to submit his case to the department but without success. He is one of the most meritorious cases in the department. He is an active fellow. He was wounded and was suffering but he wanted to earn his livelihood. I had him appointed to the Canadian National Railways for a time but he was set back because of the decrease in the number of personnel. He went to Montreal and worked in a baker's shop. He was injured there and then he came back. What I say is that the amount he gets as a consequence of the wounds that he received in action deserves special consideration, and on his behalf I insist that the department do something for him. My file is quite considerable, and I will give it to the minister in the hope that he will see to it that justice is done.
Now, what is the situation? There are some members in the house who want the bureaucrats to be free, without any control, but so far as such cases are concerned we need parliamentary control to redress the grievances of those who suffer. There is not a member in the house who will say that disabled returned men are not worthy of our consideration. If they are not worthy of the consideration of the pension commission or the allowance board-period, it ends there, thirty, as the journalists write at the end of their articles. Nothing more can be said. Thirty, it is finished. There is no appeal from the almighties, and I cry my contempt of them in the house today because there are so many pitiful and unsettled cases that deserve the consideration of everybody.
Why can we not do anything? It is because a government of a former day listened to 

those who did not want any parliamentary control over the doings of the bureaucrats in Ottawa. That is it. I believe in parliamentary control. I am ready to assume my responsibility, and I am sure the majority of members of the house feel the same about it. It is time for us to awake and to decide that every deserving case should be brought to the attention of the minister in the first place and then to the attention of the house. Let me repeat that there are no indispensable men anywhere. If there is a place where there are men who could be more easily dispensed with it is on the pension commission and the allowance board. Everybody knows it.


An hon. Member:: Smile.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have plenty but I summarize. What is wrong with that? Who disagrees with me on that?


Mr. Cardiff:: Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those who disagree with me only have to say so. 1 am here to answer them and I am not afraid to do so. I travelled 400 miles today to come here to present the cases of these men.


Mr. Hansell:: If the hon. member is asking whether anyone disagrees with him I do not mind replying to that. So far as I am personally concerned, I do disagree at least partially with him. I believe he is focusing the blame in the wrong place. He has brought a number of cases to our attention. I felt that when he was through I might ask that the item be delayed until I had sent a couple of messengers to my office with a couple of trucks to bring down all my files so that I might present the cases one at a time, but I am not going to do so. I believe that my hon. friend, together with many others, fail to realize that even the minister himself, as well as the pension board, has to work within the confines of certain rules and regulations, and they would be fired overnight if they went beyond those bounds. We have known the minister for a good many years. He has his assistant with him, and they appear to be kind-hearted men.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are. I do not deny that.


Ernest George Hansell: All right. Let us ask whether the minister feels-


Jean-François Pouliot: At least the minister is.


Ernest George Hansell: -that something should be done for these cases. I am quite certain he does not have a heart of stone. I am quite certain he would rise and say:	Yes, something should be done. We might say:	Why
are you not doing it? We may as well come to the point. The fact of the matter is that the minister, the pension commission and the

veterans allowance board are not the authorities who impose restrictions of wider application to the Pension Act or the War Veterans Allowance Act. Behind them again is a higher authority. Treasury board says: You can only have so much money. To widen the act would cost so much more. We are sorry but you will have to work within the present act.
The hon. member for Temiscouata has referred to a previous government bringing in certain rules and regulations. Let him point his finger at his own government that he supports for permitting the regulations and the acts to remain as they now stand. That is the position. I could speak the same way that he does, spread it on Hansard, and appear to be putting up a great fight for these cases. So could anyone else. But nevertheless I am confident that the minister and his department, the pension commission and the veterans allowance board would, if they obeyed the dictates of their own consciences and hearts, help every deserving case. But when one realizes that the regulations and the statute are so restrictive in their application one has to look behind the minister to find the joker in the pile. That is the situation as I see it, and I am not coming to the defence of the government. I am simply saying it all boils down to the monetary policy the government has which restricts them in being able to adequately provide for these very deserving people.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the only thing to do if the pension commissioners cannot use their powers to give a pension to anyone is to dispense with them.


Ernest George Hansell: Change the act; persuade your own government to change the act.


Jean-François Pouliot: We come to the same conclusion.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I think the remarks made by the member for Macleod very timely. It is too bad he rather spoiled them by the last few sentences. I believe, however, that what he said should have been said by the minister. He is the one who ought to reply to the tirade which has for the past half hour been directed against the pension commission and the war veterans allowance board. The member for Temiscouata has said that he wants parliamentary control. I take it that we have parliamentary control, that the pension commission itself is the result of parliamentary action and, consequently, parliamentary control. It has been established by this parliament. If that is not parliamentary control, the only other parliamentary control of which I can conceive would be to have parliament set itself up as a committee to hear all
Supply-Veterans Affairs those cases and make decisions on them individually. It is obvious that such a method of dealing with those matters is out of the question.
As a result of a bill introduced by the government and approved by parliament, parliament has laid down the rules by which the pension commission and the war veterans allowance board deal with the cases that come before them. I am not always satisfied with the decisions I receive on the cases I present to them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: I said I am not satisfied, and I should like them to see things as I see them. But I am in this position. When they show me they have dealt with those cases according to the statute governing their work, I cannot tell them I think they should depart from that statute. Once they depart from the letter and spirit of law disposition of cases becomes arbitrary. I presume they were all sworn to administer the law as we give it to them. The moment they depart from that there is really no control whatever. They can deal with this man in this way, and they can deal with that man in that way. They have, as I see it, a statute that lays down exactly how they are to deal with each case that comes before them. So long as they do that we have no case against the commission. We have a case against parliament and against the government, but no case against the commission.
It is regrettable that there are those cases that cannot, by a strict interpretation of the act, be dealt with. But that does not say, or it should not say, that there should be no assistance or no redress for those people. We should have enough intelligence, and enough compassion, to provide other means by which every person in this country who is not able to look after himself is provided for.


An hon. Member:: National dividend.


Donald MacInnis: I do not care whether you call it a national dividend or what you call it. I am sure the person receiving it would not care what it is called so long as it is sufficient to provide him with the necessities of life, and some of the comforts as well. I believe we can do that. But I think we should get away from this tirade against boards that we have set up that are carrying out the law as we have laid it down.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Vancouver East has not only defended the pension commission and the allowance board, but he has once more expounded the socialist doctrine of irresponsibility. Just a moment ago the hon. member for Macleod said that

Supply-Veterans Affairs he was in partial disagreement with me. I wonder if those are his words, but that is the idea they conveyed to me. If he is in partial disagreement with me, I thank him for being in partial agreement with me. He will not make me believe that the policy of the treasury board has been to refuse to honour the rulings of the pension commission or of the allowance board with regard to pitiful and deserving cases. If we discuss abstractions in the house, and nothing else, if we do not bring cases to illustrate our complaints then the speeches made by any hon. gentlemen will be purely academic. No result will come from them.
If we want to bring the attention of the minister, of the house and of the country, to these cases to prevent a repetition of such errors, why not do it right here in the house before men who are well disposed towards the veterans a.ndl their associations? I shall tell the member for Vancouver East how I understand parliamentary control over crown companies, over boards, etc. It is very easy to understand it. That parliamentary control would be quite unnecessary if we did not find in those boards that attitude of infallibility and smugness that so often exists. A decision is made. No one will reconsider it, because the first decision must be right. If it is wrong they are humiliated. They feel depressed. They feel dishonoured. They do not admit the old Latin saying errare huma-num est, it is human to err. They decide something, and there is no appeal from that. The minister cannot force them to change their decision.
If I have brought so many cases to the kind attention of the house, it is to make the house understand that there must be a change of mind in the minds of these "almighties," whether of the pension commission or of the allowance board. I am sick and tired of writing and giving evidence about complaints that are well founded concerning men who are suffering injustices. There is always a reason to refuse to reconsider the case, and to show the same determination of infallibility. The other day an hon. member asked the minister to express himself about it. He did so. Today the same thing happened. Here we are, as rubber stamps. We have to bow to all the boards, crown companies and bureaucrats that we have in Ottawa.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Rubbish.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have to say: You are almighties. You are the great of the world. You cannot make any mistakes. We members of parliament are here as rubber stamps to approve everything that you do. When you say "yes", we must thank you. When you say "no", we must say that you are always right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I do not think the hon. gentleman now speaking has the right to describe members of parliament as rubber stamps. Let him speak for himself. I will speak for myself. I am no rubber stamp, and he knows it; and I will never be a rubber stamp. If I was, I would not admit it and belong to the party.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member has said that he is not a rubber stamp. I take his word for that, but with great reluctance.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make progress with what has been said this afternoon, and I have some other cases that I should like to put on record. After I do so I shall leave it to the wisdom of the minister to see to it that, in due course, the act is changed. I have not taken the trouble to prepare an amend-* ment to the act. This is not the place for that, and I did not want to interfere with the sittings of the veterans affairs committee.
I may tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I am not indulging in political partisanship in defending these cases because most of them are in connection with men whom I have never met and whom I shall probably never meet. But they wrote to me in all confidence and I think that they deserve the consideration of all members of parliament.
There is the case of Raoul Turbide, E-10543, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.: enlisted June 11, 1941; Chaudiere regiment; three years and nine months overseas; 26 May, 1945, discharged for ill health; 25 April, 1947, pleurisy; 17 April, 1950, t.b. of the two lungs. Dr. Gauthier, a specialist, in examining X-rays taken at the time of discharge notices the presence of a lesion at the upper part of the right lung. Dr. Tremblay, radiologist, expresses the opinion that the X-ray taken recently is negative, and that the one taken at the moment of his discharge reveals cloudiness at the upper part of the right lung. Dr. Edwards declares: You have been a t.b. since you were discharged from the army. His corporal of section, Frangois Pelletier, until his departure from the regiment because of tuberculosis, shared the same room, the same tent and the same hut with him. Pelletier is being treated and pensioned. Appeals unfavourable decision on pension application. Married and three children.
One of them has a pension. They were in the same tent; and unfortunately they are suffering from the same disease. One has a pension, the other has none. Why, I do not know.
Then there is the case of Wilfrid Auclair, E-57823, St. Arsene: enlisted April 15, 1942;

discharged March, 1945; an invalid, stomach operation; receives no pension. Would he be entitled to an allowance?
This is an important point. These allowances are supposed to adjust what is overlooked by the pension commission. If a man cannot have a pension by virtue of the act, he may be given an allowance; and sometimes an allowance is given supplementary to a pension in order to permit a veteran to subsist until a better decision is given.
On many occasions I brought cases to the attention of the former minister of veterans affairs and of the great Walter Tucker of Saskatchewan, his most able parliamentary assistant. He saw to the matter. He worked hard and he succeeded in doing something. But now I cannot ask anything of the parliamentary assistant to the minister. I do not want to bother the minister, but I know that the minister is willing to do something. It is because of that fact that I bring these cases to the attention of the committee today. If I had no confidence in the minister, I would not do so. But I am bringing them to the attention of the committee. I am not interested in his parliamentary assistant. I know that it would take a long time to get as parliamentary assistant to the minister a man of the calibre of Walter Tucker. The good that he did for the veterans of the whole country cannot be told in one sitting of parliament.
Then there is the case of Theodule Berube, 666828, 864, Ste. Therese, Quebec: Veteran of both wars; in ill health; receives an allowance of $70 a month for himself and his two children; has been drawing it for two years; has asked for a pension for two years. He thanks the minister for what he has done for him. I appreciate that.
Then there is the case of Odina Blanchette, E-42230, Squatteck; five years in the army, from 1941 to 1946, and wounded twice at the front; enlarged heart; chokes when tired; stomach trouble; wants to be hospitalized and treated, and that his wife and family receive allocation; wants a pension. Until now he has received nothing. I am not surprised but I beg hon. members of the committee-whether they agree with me or whether they disagree with me-to give me their support in a case like that. The veterans of their constituencies will appreciate it, and the matter will be settled once and for all. I am not going to say any more about the matter.
I take this matter seriously; when I do a thing like that, I do it because I consider it to be my duty, and there is no joke about
Supply-Veterans Affairs it. I will not stand for any joke from anybody. If there is someone who is not satisfied, I will go to his constituency and I will tell his constituents how he behaved when I was arguing the case of disabled men here in this chamber. I have done so in western Ontario. I can do it anywhere.


Victor Quelch: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Victor Quelch: Has he not already brought these cases to the attention of the minister? Surely he has not waited until now to do that. If he has done so, has the minister refused to take any action with regard to them?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Victor Quelch: Why bring them before the
committee now?


Jean-François Pouliot: Most of them are new cases
that were referred to me after I complained of the pension commission and the allowance board in the house. These are men whom I have never met in my life, and whom I shall probably never meet unless I am appointed inspector of the military hospitals of the country, something which I doubt will occur. I will never meet most of them. But I ask for consideration of their cases, because I respect the army, and because 1 think that the country owes a great deal to the men who have been wounded in a theatre of war. They deserve every consideration and I am sure that they will have the full support of the House of Commons of Canada.


Robert Fair: It is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman,
but before you leave the chair may I suggest that we should take one or two more minutes in order to give the minister an opportunity to discharge his responsibility to the officials who sit before him.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bills Nos. 200 to 231, 233 to 266, 270 to 283, 297 to 320, 323 to 331, 339 to 342, 345 to 350, inclusive-Mr. Winkler

Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Ellen Agnes Evans Boisvert.-Mr. Winkler.
4522	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Muriel Bruce Higgins Greenleaf.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Real Levesque. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Mary Ruth Langlois Michael.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Betty Rose-man Feigelman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Rachel Aizer Forman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Romeo Paradis. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Neveu.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Kathleen Harrington Courcy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Anna Goral-czyk Jurewicz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Colette Clement Carrieres.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Bertha Barbara Bishop Wheatley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Carl Marius Nielsen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Doris Eileen Rowe Brenan Stavert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Gertrude Job Fraser.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Ruth Fishman Wynn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Beatrice Vida Harriett Hunnisett Glenday.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Salfeda Busko Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Margaret Isobel Barnett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Thelma Rosenberg Schwarz Bard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Rollande Cecile Larocque Duquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Etta Smolkin Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Jeanne Wigdor Millman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Capitola Jodoin Ranger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Gaston Deguire.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Jean Troster Fink.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Rae Goldstein White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Phyllis Eileen Paris Gibson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	228,	for	the	relief	of	Lorraine
Colville Watson Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	229,	for	the	relief	of	Edward
Stanley Darby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	230,	for	the	relief	of	Bernard
Kenneth McCormack.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	231,	for	the	relief	of	Mansell
Reginald Jacques.-Mr. Winkler.
[The Chairman.]
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Julia Starr Melnick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of William Alfred Jameson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Jean Camille Antoine Coutu.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Mary Jenner Watkins.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Geraldine Mae Cuffe Kennedy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Lucille Ida Fenlon Ashmore.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Ela Raizman. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Julia Saad Shagory.-Mr. Winkler.	*
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Lottie Aileen Wright Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Arthur David Prosser..-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Edmund Vaughan Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Clemence McKenzie Caron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Meinerth Aage Arsvold Wick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Myrtle Louise Vassell Evans.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Margo Clare McManus McKeown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Eli Wilson Jewel-.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Beulah Nellie Elliott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Terez Baranyai Jekkel, otherwise known as Therese Baranyai Jekkel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Andrew Krilyk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Harold Dimond Parsons.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Peter Seniw. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Bell Bissonnette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Gertrude Banner Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Selma Schenker Wyler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Frances Helen Shulman Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Agnes Mary Binnie Bullock.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Marie Rose Berthe Bernard Greco.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Paul Emile Le Blanc.-Mr Winkler.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Taras Pieluch.
*-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Joyce Margaret Wright Roxburgh.-Mr. Weir.

Bill No. 263, for the relief of Elsie Mary Harrop Cameron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Anna Kirk Rosborough Finlayson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Pauline Parent Bjarnason.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Mona Patricia Kiddie Heaney.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Irmgard Magdalena Hetzel Lichtenstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Anna Boronow Walter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Ann Smith Couldrey.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Phoebe Ross Kidd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Alice Ann Gordon Lewis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Evelyn Serchuk Desjardins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Vivian June Pomeroy Walker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Vivian Edna Bartlett Tribe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Jeannine Lafleur Leatherdale.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Bertram Kenneth Kidman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Louis Elie Yon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Doris Mary Thompson Lummis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Estelle Tetreau Latour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Mona Fern Barton Kirkman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Addie Jane Monica Wright Brock.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Evelyn Maria Bianchi Lippiatt.-Mr. Winkler.	t
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Leon Simon March and.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Ruth Helen Findlay Paterson Priestman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Ilse Helen Kneutgen Jorgensen.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Howard Wesley Bartlett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Stephanos Katinoglou.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Yetta Handler Meller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Raymond Landry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Lloyd William Lane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Lovannez Chartrand Dinelle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Sophie Kotsos Moscoutis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Mae Kert Sigman.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Sarah Jane Greeley Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of John Cook Donaldson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Cecily Chandler Troop.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Doris May Thompson Ewaldt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Laurette Trudel Charland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of William Stevenson Greenshields.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Clare Kent Gerrie Jorgensen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Beatrice Watson Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Marion Cruickshank MacArthur.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Annie Mendelson Teitelbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Gwendoline Mary Teresa Sullivan Duddridge.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Jane Stirling Stephens.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Mavis Elizabeth Thomas Wrathall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Ida Courland Rubin Flesch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Yvonne Winifred Kathleen Walker Andrews.-Mr. Winkler.
Bili No. 327, for the relief of Elizabeth Cochrane Aitchison Lalonde.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Violet Taylor Carey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Julia Saykaly Hajaly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Doris Auclair Gingras.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Georges Paquin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Marie Laure Jacqueline Patenaude Racine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Muriel Edna Glass Fryer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Emma Laronde Bell, sometimes known as Emma DeLaronde Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Birute Elena Vaitkunaite Akstinas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Joseph Alfred Sabourin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Sarah Kami-chik Coviensky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Yvette Marsan ValiqUette, otherwise known as Marie Fer-nande Yvette Marsan	Valiquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth McIntyre Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
4524	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Mildred Ann Sinclair Allen.-Mr. Winkler. .
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Gabrielle Robert Mallette.-Mr. Winkler.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1
of these bills carry?


Mr. Knowles:: The motion you have just
put is for clause 1 of some 124 divorce bills. These are bills that have been referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills and reported back for consideration by the committee of the whole house. Obviously, if one exercised his right to ask that these bills be called one at a time, and gave even half a minute's consideration to each, we would not finish the 124 of them in the hour allotted to private bills. It is not my purpose to exercise that right tonight; but I do hope that hon. members generally will recognize the point that I have been trying to make for several weeks, to the effect that it is utterly impossible for us in parliament to give the kind of consideration that should be given to these bills. Along with that point I insist that we should consider having these divorce cases dealt with somewhere else, and as hon. members know, my proposal is that they should be referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada sitting here in Ottawa. However, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you would permit me to ask a question with respect to a few of these bills.
In the absence of the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee, I shall address my question to the acting sponsor of these bills, the hon. member for Spadina. When some of these bills were before the house for second reading I asked in certain particular cases that they be given close consideration by the committee on miscellaneous private bills. I made that request with respect to order No. 41, which is Bill No. 206.
I made a similar request with respect to order No. 129, which is Bill No. 311. I made comments which called for consideration by the committee of orders Nos. 140 to 151 inclusive, and I drew particular attention to order No. 147, Bill No. 331. Can the hon. member for Spadina tell me whether the committee on miscellaneous private bills gave particular consideration to these bills, as was requested on the floor of the house?


David Arnold Croll: I cannot give the assurance. I know that the chairman of the committee did look into these bills, and he did pass around the evidence to the various members and indicated that these bills were questioned, but I cannot give him any assurance beyond that. His remarks were noted, and we had occasion to re-read the evidence-those of us who wanted to. That is as far as I can go. [The Chairman.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand that all
124 of these bills were passed in the committee on miscellaneous private bills on one motion?


David Arnold Croll: No; I do not think they were
passed at one sitting. I do not know how many of them were actually passed at one sitting, but I would not say they were all passed. At the last meeting we passed only eight, as a matter of fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, all of
the 124 are listed on the order paper now in our hands under date of June 14. That is the date they were reported back to the house from the committee. From discussing the matter with some members of the committee my information is that although time was spent on two particular cases that were contested no attention was given by the committee as such to any of these 124, and it follows that no particular attention was given to the several to which I had drawn special attention. I will say no more, Mr. Chairman. In drawing attention to what has been done I register my protest at the insufficiency of the way in which we are dealing with these cases.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 of
these bills carry?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not intend to
withhold unanimous consent, because I realize that, as the previous speaker has said, if we asked that these bills be read as they should be, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, and if we were carrying on the business of this committee in a proper manner, we would probably take up the full hour allotted at this time. There are on the order paper several bills that I should like to see passed. There is one in particular that I know hon. members are very anxious to see passed, but I do not see the sponsor of it here tonight.
I just want to put myself on record again, Mr. Chairman, very briefly. I do not want to take any more time than is necessary in this hour. In 1940 I registered my objection to these bills coming before the house and I still have the same objection to the bills.
I had never heard of them before I was elected in 1940, and I do not think that 98 per cent of the members had ever heard of their coming before the houses of parliament. I believe there is a proper place for them, and I am not entering into the merits or demerits of any individual case. I am merely putting myself on record that I strenuously oppose these bills being brought before parliament at any time. I believe it is not the proper place for them, and I reiterate my opinion that it makes a farce

out of parliament when we are asked to pass 100 or 150 bills, without having the slightest consideration of them.
I know the sponsor of one bill seems to have the ill-informed idea that I oppose his bill. I have no intention of doing that. But I must express my opinion through you, Mr. Chairman, that these bills should not be before the House of Commons at all. They should be heard before some other forum where there would be judicial settlement of them without wasting our time and without placing on Hansard the details of the private lives of people who, unfortunately, are unable to live happily together.


Mr. George:: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not wish to leave the impression I gained from his remarks. Every opportunity has been given members of the committee, and others, to question any of these bills or the evidence supporting them. This has just been explained by the hon. member for Spadina. While the bills were not called by number, I do know there was one contested bill at the last meeting. Each bill that has been contested has been subjected to further study. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not mean to leave the impression that the bills were passed without opportunity being given for their study in committee.


Mr. Knight:: May I ask one question which calls for a direct answer. How many of these 124 bills were studied at the last committee meeting?


Edmund William George: I am not chairman of the committee, but the hon. member knows as well as I do that there was only one-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There was not any, sir-none of these.


Edmund William George: One bill was studied, the bill which was protested. But there was nothing to stop any member of the committee from bringing up the subject matter of any bill. As a member of the committee I think that in all fairness that should be stated here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Westmorland is entitled to make the statement he has just given, but it does not alter the fact that the committee passed 124 bills without discussing or dealing with any one of them in any way.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bills
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does not anyone shout "on division" any more?
Private Bills


An hon. Member:: On division.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report the bills?
Bills reported.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the third reading of Bills Nos. 200 to 231, 233 to 266, 270 to 283, 297 to 320, 323 to 331, 339 to 342, 345 to 350 inclusive.
Motion agreed to and bills read the third time and passed.




[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 366, to incorporate the Missisquoi and Rouville Insurance Company-Mr. Gosselin.
Bill No. 367, to incorporate Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company-Mr. Larson.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 335, respecting Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation-Mr. Macnaughton-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Change of name.
George Alexander Cruickshank: May we have an explanation of this?


Mr. Lesage:: The hon. member for Mount Royal gave a full explanation of the bill, I believe, on second reading.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As the hon. member for Fraser Valley is aware, it is the practice to give an explanation at that time. I remember that that was done. If the hon. member will look at the bill he will see that there is only one section, dealing with the change of name.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 356, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Decore-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Company authorized to purchase Alberta Coal Company Limited.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to speak on section 1-and it has been suggested that I be answered in French. However, in connection with this matter I should like to have some of the answers in both French and English because I think the whole of Canada is interested-and particularly some of the members from my own province should be interested.

Canadian Pacific Railway Company
This is a private bill respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in connection with certain railway undertakings in Alberta. I have no objection to the railway company making the purchase, but I am particularly interested in knowing what steps the railway is taking to protect the people who reside in locations adjacent to the railway. I have had a little experience with the operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway in my province. Hon. members representing ridings which have greater economic possibilities at stake than my riding should be interested in this matter. Incidentally, the Canadian Pacific Railway has done a magnificent job in developing Canada, although' they have always been subsidized by the people of Canada in doing it.
This bill gives me an opportunity to ask for some information which so far I have not been able to get. I inquired of the Department of Public Works, but they told me that this did not come under that department. I inquired of the Department of Transport, and they said it was not their department. Surely there must be some department of government which is responsible in this connection and able to give information when a franchise is granted to a railway company to erect or extend a main line or branch line.
In British Columbia there is the great Fraser river about which a magnificent book was written by Bruce Hutchison. He describes that river in language which I could never use. It is a peaceful river and a productive one as a rule but sometimes it is most destructive. I want hon. members to note the difference between "productive" and "destructive." For many years a section of British Columbia endeavoured to have the Canadian Pacific Railway assume its fair share of responsibility in protecting a branch line similar to this branch line, the Huntingdon-Mission line. When this matter was before the board of transport commissioners at a hearing in Victoria the chairman stated that if he had the authority he would not hesitate for one minute to have them assume their fair share of responsibility in protecting their own line.
To bring things up to date, in 1948 we had unfortunate flood conditions in British Columbia which finally resulted in considerable monetary, physical and other damage. The people of Canada through this parliament contributed generously to providing protection in that area so there would not be a repetition of those floods. Just about three weeks before that flood this same railroad company which now asks permission to obtain another branch line said that they would not give one dollar toward strengthening the dikes, toward the upkeep of the dikes


which protected their property. They said that they were not interested because the Huntingdon-Mission line was not affected by high water. That information was tabled here by the Minister of Transport in the form of a copy of a letter from the then president of the company.


Jean Lesage: Is he in order?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am told that I am out of order. I am not out of order because I am simply trying to protect the people about whom I know something.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, I just asked my seatmate if the hon. member was out of order. I put the question for obvious reasons.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I accept the apology of my hon. friend to my left. I got this by airmail yesterday from my constituency. I am simply taking advantage of this opportunity to ask protection for the people who elected me, rightly or wrongly.


An hon. Member:: Rightly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Someone says "rightly." I want to know if the people adjacent to this branch line are going to be placed in the same position. In the other case the railroad company said they would assume no responsibility. The taxpayers of this country were generous enough in 1948 to provide about $10 million to rehabilitate and protect this area. Those facts are on record.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I point out to the hon. member that this bill is to grant the Canadian Pacific Railway Company legislative authority to purchase the railway undertaking of Alberta Coal Company Limited. The remarks of the hon. member should be strictly relevant to the section. He would be in order in discussing the advisability of authorizing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to purchase the railway undertaking of Alberta Coal Company Limited.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is exactly what I was leading up to and you are absolutely correct. I am trying to follow the section in its entirety. I want to know if the people in this particular area are to be treated in the same manner that the people on the branch line in British Columbia were not protected. My question is based on a return which was brought down by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works. It was shown that the Fraser river was obstructed above the Mission bridge with the result that in 1938 a section of the bridge was torn out as well as a section of the dike. That dike

cost the people of Canada over $50,000, which included $25,000 for rock. That amount was given to me toy Mr. J. B. Carswell.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In speaking to this section the hon. member, if he desires to, may ask if the people living in the territory adjacent to this line will be protected in, a manner different from the case about which he now is speaking. After having given the illustration I think he should ask the sponsor to answer the question and not elaborate on an explanation of what happened in the other case.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have never been out of order since I have been here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -and I do not like being declared out of order now.


An hon. Member:: You are in a tough place.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is not very tough. You come from British Columbia and you know the Mission bridge. Mr. Chairman, you have put the matter more clearly and concisely than I could. I just want to know if the people on this new railroad-it is new in so far as ownership by the Canadian Pacific is concerned-will be protected in a different manner from the people in the Fraser valley and from the people in Victoria, a city which depends for its very existence upon the rest of Canada. Are we to permit this to go on exactly as it is? I defy any member to say that it is not serious when within ten days-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I have
already asked the hon. member to direct his remarks to the clause under consideration. He goes back to it after he is called to order and a few sentences later he goes back to these other cases. This is not the place to talk about these other cases. This is merely a bill to authorize the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to purchase the Alberta Coal Company railway and that is all. I hope the hon. member will limit his remarks to the clause from now on.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is just the point I was coming to, Mr. Chairman. In order to ensure that there will not be any repetition, can the sponsor of the bill tell me the cost of the purchase of this railway, how many miles are involved, and what assurances will be given the people adjacent to the railway that they will secure protection?


Mr. Decore:: I am not clear as to what protection the hon. member is referring to, but the number of miles is fourteen. It is a spur line which was built by the Alberta Coal Company. I do not know what the exact
Private Bills
figure is with regard to the purchase price, but that was all discussed in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I believe the hon. member is a member of that committee and probably has the information already, or had access to it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 332, for the relief of Marion Agnes Kelsch Cleghorn-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I want to say with respect to this bill that I understand it was given consideration at some length by the members of the committee on miscellaneous private bills. I do not agree with the decision that they came to. In fact further study and further material I have collected since objecting to this bill at second reading make me feel that this divorce should not be granted, but in view of the fact that the committee has recommended to the house that it should be granted apparently there is no other course for me to take but simply to register my opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the title
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Title agreed to on division.
Bill reported.


David Arnold Croll: the third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill read the third time and passed on division.



GEORGE KEITH HENDERSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 343, for the relief of George Keith Henderson-Mr. Winkler-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when we were on second reading of this bill, as recorded in Hansard for June 12 at page 4001, I drew

Private Bills-Divorce
attention to the fact that this was a contested case. I gave a few of the particulars, noting that the wife, who contested this divorce, is now residing in the United States, but that she came up here to contest the divorce and brought with her a United States lawyer as well as having a Canadian counsel. I do not intend to go into further detail now, but I should like to ask whether my request that the committee give close consideration to this case was met by the committee.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to mislead the hon. member. The evidence was before the committee. The chairman asked me to read the case in order to be ready to deal with it before the committee. I read the case. Later it came before the committee and as a matter of fact there were no questions on it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the hon. member's report as to what went on in the committee. May I point out how unsatisfactory this is. When on second reading some of us take the trouble to read these cases and draw attention to cases that call for particular scrutiny, objection is taken to the time we take. It is said that these bills go to a committee, so let the committee consider them. I feel if we are going to handle these divorces in parliament-a course to which I object-we have a right to expect the committee on its own initiative to pay a little more attention to individual cases than seems to be the fact from the reports that we get. I think the experience we have had in this session of parliament makes it crystal clear that this is no place to be dealing with divorce cases at all. In another session it is pretty clear that it will be felt by some of us that it is our responsibility right from the start to pay closer attention to these divorce cases until such time as parliament decides to transfer them to some other jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the preamble carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Preamble agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
David Arnold Croll: the third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill read the third time and passed on division.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
THIRjl. READINGS
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Archibald Kenneth MacLean.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Marion Evelyn Peak Collins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Eugenie Marjorie Ross Finley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Ruth Mary Halsey Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Ivy Grace Barnsdale Moore.-Mr. Winkler.

David Arnold Croll: the second reading of Bill No. 232, for the relief of John Atherton Critchley.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If I could have the consent of the sponsor and the house would agree, I would like this bill to stand. I wish to say a word or two in regard to it, and I thought perhaps we might be able to consider some of the private bills other than divorce bills tonight.


David Arnold Croll: That is agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not require unanimous consent. If the sponsor of the bill does not wish to go ahead he does not have to.


David Arnold Croll: I am quite satisfied to have it stand.
Motion stands.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 359, for the relief of John Brock Short.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Joseph Duchesne.

Mr. Winkler
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Helen Marion Peacock Rondeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Rodolphe Boisjoly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Theresa Verna Brisson Humphreys.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Dorothy Shapiro Ram.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Dorothy Chaffee Caduc.-Mr. Winkler.

Mr. E. T. Applewhaiie (for Mr. Brown, Essex West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 365, respecting Canadian Slovak Benefit Society.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation of this bill?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: This bill is simply intended to correct a technicality. This society was

incorporated by act of parliament assented to December 18, 1945. Among the powers given the society are those of insurance as to its members. Under section 4 (2) of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, if such a company has not filed an actuarial certificate within two years from the coming into force of the act the act ceases to be effective except for the purpose of winding up the company.
This society did fail to file an actuarial certificate. In 1948 by statute parliament extended the life of the company for that purpose to December 18, 1948. An actuary was employed to prepare the certificate, but when only part through the job he became ill and was unable to continue. Another actuary was employed who, very shortly before the expiration of the time limit, informed the society that he would not be able to find time to complete the work. Since then the time limit has expired. An actuarial certificate has been prepared and, I am told, lodged with the superintendent of insurance; but there is no forum to which the society can come, except this parliament, for an extension of the time for the filing of the certificate. It cannot be done, as in most company cases, by application to a judge. Therefore this society is asking that the time be extended to December 18, 1952.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. Speaker, it was held when a similar bill was before us on May 18, 1948, that it was appropriate to refer the bill direct to committee of the whole, since it is not a matter of incorporation but merely one of extending the time. So if you will accept such a motion I will move that you do now leave the chair and that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the unanimous consent of the house, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena 'Mr. Applewhaite):
That items Nos. 1V9, 180, 181 and 182, precede item 178 on the order paper this day, so that said items shall be called in the following order: 179, 180, 181, 182, 178.
My reason for introducing this motion, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill which has been called and which I am sponsoring-although I am1 convinced that a great majority of the members would like to vote on it-has been
Private Bills
delayed for a certain length of time, and should it again be delayed tonight I should not like to see the bills after it on the order paper also delayed. I therefore hope that my motion will commend itself to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David Arnold Croll: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Flora Muriel Crane Keane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Opal Jean Ellis Pike.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Elphege Fournier.-Mr. Winkler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just point out that this will make 142 divorce bills that we have processed this evening.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.



UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 337, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Saskatchewan-Mr. Knight-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Herridge.
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, for quite a long time now the house has had before it one or more pipe line bills and a good many divorce bills. Some of the hon. members of the house have asked what the official Alberta position is with respect to the various bills that have been put before the house for the building of pipe lines to one place or another. I think that it would be wise for me to take a short time to place on record the position which the Alberta government takes, as well as my own position, with regard to this particular Bill No. 118, letter N-l of the Senate.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
There are some people who think that the Alberta government has made a choice as between pipe line lines and that it has been prepared to grant a licence to one or the other of the pipe line companies that have been incorporated through the action of this house. In order to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on Hansard a statement made by the premier of Alberta to a group of pressmen in the city of Edmonton not long ago. Mr. Manning said:
It has come to my attention that the impression prevails in some quarters that the government of Alberta has made certain commitments concerning the approval of a proposed route for an oil pipe line to the Pacific coast.
In the interests of all concerned, I wish to state emphatically that the government of Alberta has made no commitments whatsoever either expressed or implied to any prospective builder or other individual or group interested in construction of such a pipe line.
The necessity and importance of an oil pipe line to the Pacific coast to assure the continuation and a further expansion of our oil development is widely recognized, and surveys currently under way to determine the economic and engineering factors which must be taken into account in determining the feasibility of such a project are being followed with much interest.
The provincial government's responsibility in this matter is that of a trustee for the citizens of Alberta. Accordingly, the government is not concerned with the matter of routes from the standpoint of the interests of any company or group seeking to promote one particular route in preference to another.
Representing the interests of the people of Alberta as a whole, the government takes the position that a pipe line for the export of Alberta oil to the Pacific coast should follow a route determined by a competent authority as the most economic and otherwise advantageous.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the premier of Alberta concluded with these words; I should just like to put these few lines on the record, and it will complete this part of what I have to say. He concluded by saying:
It should be a route that will ensure the maximum possible well-head price to Alberta oil producers and the minimum cost of fuel oil products to Alberta citizens, with the assurance of long-term supply, first to the citizens of Alberta, secondly to other Canadians, and thirdly to our neighbours in the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: The
hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
535. Departmental administration, $2,208,070.
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Just before the afternoon sitting was over, Mr. Chairman, the hon.

member for Temiscouata had been speaking. I regret to see that he is not in his seat, as I do not like to make any references to any, hon. member when he is absent from the chamber. The hon. member, in the course of his speech, evidently intended to bring to my personal attention the cases of certain veterans who had corresponded with him, and he saw fit to criticize very bitterly the work performed by the Canadian pension commission and by the war veterans allowance board. He also saw fit to denounce personally the members of that commission and of that board.
I appreciate the interest which the hon. member has shown in the welfare of the veterans whose cases he referred to me this afternoon. I also realize that it is his privilege, as a member of parliament, to criticize the work of the Canadian pension commission, and to criticize the work of the war veterans allowance board, two bodies set up under authority of this parliament, and who are responsible to this parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot ignore the unwarranted personal attacks which the hon. member chose to launch on individual members of the commission and of the war veterans allowance board. I must say with much regret that I am surprised that one who has as much parliamentary experience and background as the hon. member should take advantage of such an occasion to voice his personal likes or dislikes of senior officials of my department who, because of the very function and of the responsibilities which have been' entrusted to them, cannot defend themselves against such personal attacks.
As was pointed out this afternoon, and as was pointed out on many occasions before, these men are performing duties within the scope of the legislation voted on by the parliament of Canada and through regulations approved by the governor in council, that is, by the government. The parliament of Canada has also decided that they should have exclusive jurisdiction in the matters referred to them.
The hon. member, in his denunciation of the work of these two bodies, referred to the bureaucratic attitude of the members of these bodies. Well, Mr. Chairman, both the Canadian pension commission and the war veterans allowance board were given exclusive jurisdiction in the matters referred to them by acts of parliament, and that was done many years ago. It was done before I ever entered parliament, and it was done before the words "bureaucrat" and "bureaucratic" became so popular in the political language of this country. Unless

parliament is willing to set itself up as an appeal court, or to set up the Minister of Veterans Affairs as a reviewing authority to pass judgment upon the rulings of these two bodies-a course which I for one would oppose very strongly-then the two bodies must assume the responsibility of rendering final judgment. It is the ungrateful lot of those entrusted with such responsibilities, particularly when these responsibilities carry with them the administration and the awarding of public funds, that they must discharge their duties within the framework of the acts and of the regulations which govern them.
I regret personally, as I said before, that the hon. member should have seen fit to speak as he did concerning senior officers of my department, but his remarks provided me with the occasion to put on record the fact that since I took over the portfolio of veterans affairs, nearly a year ago, I have had the opportunity to appreciate fully the work which these gentlemen have performed on behalf of the veterans of Canada from one end of the country to the other. I would like to say this, as regards the Canadian pension commission itself, and I know that I express the views of veterans generally throughout the country, that we are extremely fortunate to have had for the last eight years the services of the present chairman who, since world war I, has served the interests of the veterans of Canada, and under whose leadership a succession of commissioners have rendered faithful service to this country.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item
carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No sir. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of the minister. He has overlooked one point. It is that I have established in good English the distinction between himself and those that he calls the high officials of his department. Well, in what the minister has said there is only one point in which I do not agree with him. In the first place, I must say that I believe opinions are free. He is satisfied with his officials-so much the better. Some people like onions in the soup; others do not. It is a matter of personal opinion, and I respect his views. I do not like the onions in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I may say that. I do not appreciate them as much as others do. There is no question of likes and dislikes. It is a matter which is much more serious than that. If it were only a matter of likes and dislikes I would not have risen in my place this afternoon to bring some meritorious cases to the attention of the committee and of the country.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
What the minister has said confirms exactly what I have said about the authority vested in these officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I stated this afternoon that they have the right of life and death over disabled men; the minister said a moment ago that they have exclusive jurisdiction, and that they assume the responsibility of rendering final judgment. When they were praised many members applauded. They may have been satisfied with the way they have fulfilled their office. It is their right. I have no objection to that at all, but what I say is that I have submitted to them countless cases of veterans. The wrongs have not been redressed. That is what I * regret. There are reform clubs throughout the country. It has been the policy of the Liberal party to practise reforms, and not to use the word "reform" in vain. We have reform clubs here and there, especially in the province of Quebec. What is the purpose of those clubs? It is to give an opportunity to those who call themselves reformers -and that was the name of the old Liberals; they were called reformers-to see what is wrong in the administration of this country, to try to remedy it, to try to improve conditions for the benefit of the many.
It is a question of opinion. And when an hon. member of the Social Credit group rose the other day and asked the minister if he approved of what I said, I knew what the answer would be. But what does it change? Does it prove cases? Perhaps the hon. member is right; perhaps he is satisfied with the way the soldiers in his constituency have been dealt with by the two organizations I mentioned this afternoon. But I am not satisfied. I do not say that for myself; I say it on behalf of those who write to me and whose cases I have defended in the House of Commons.
Unquestionably I have the right as a member of parliament to lay grievances before the Chair in a sitting of this committee. I regret nothing. I am not humiliated. I am not angry with the minister because he disagrees with me, not at all. There was a silly journalist who wrote in a daily newspaper that the minister frowned at me because he disagreed with me. We can disagree and be good friends, just the same; otherwise life would be unbearable.
I have my opinion, which I have justified before the house. So the house cannot say I speak through my hat. I have brought many cases to the attention of the house, cases which cannot be denied, cases which can be argued at greater length.
I have one case here, a real volume which I shall put before the minister. This man
4532	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs was in his own regiment, the Chaudiere, when they invaded Normandy and captured a town. I have sympathy for this man, as I am sure the minister has. I do not say that by way of criticism. I want to have the minister fully informed, and as soon as he is he will say, "Pouliot is right".


Robert Fair: Since I have been dragged into this discussion'-


Jean-François Pouliot: Mildly.


Robert Fair: -all I wish to say is that I believe the Canadian pension commission and the war veterans allowance board are doing their job within the framework of the legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons. I am not satisfied with all the decisions that have been made in connection with some of the cases I have taken up. But I do believe the officials referred to have gone as far as they can within the framework of the law. Instead of attacking men who cannot defend themselves here, I think our job should be to attack the legislation that is not as it should be. By that method we will widen the power of the two boards referred to and give our veterans better protection and better satisfaction.


Jean-François Pouliot: Opinions are free.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I rise to agree with the hon. member for Battle River in what he has just said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Treatment services-
538. Operation of hospitals and administration, $36,249,295.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have been in communication with the minister, as many other people have, in regard to the veterans hospital at Airport No. 4, Saskatoon. The minister announced that he and the Minister of National Defence were reconsidering the matter of breaking up that hospital at that point. I took up the matter, and put on the record the argument which my friends and I thought should be advanced. My purpose is merely to ask the minister if a definite decision has been reached.


Hugues Lapointe: I am surprised the hon. member should bring up the matter because I was under the impression I had signed a letter a day or two ago addressed to him, telling him of the decision to maintain the veterans hospital at Saskatoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The post office service is slow at times.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On behalf of the people of Saskatoon, on my own behalf, and speaking


particularly for those veterans may I say that we are very grateful to the minister and the government for this decision.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
544.War veterans allowance board, administration, $187,268.
Gordon Graydon: Would it be possible to abolish the means test in connection with war veterans allowances? Many of us have had representations to this effect from time to time, and it seems to me that veterans of that age should not be put into a strait-jacket in respect of their outside earnings. There are not many of them. It seems to me the minister might well consider the matter, particularly when we are abolishing the means test for civilians, as we are in legislation now before parliament. In view of that fact I think we ought to be able to abolish it in connection with war veterans allowances as well.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, as the hon.
member for Peel knows, there is a close relationship between war veterans allowances and old age pensions. The original basis of the war veterans allowance was that the veteran who had seen active service in a theatre of operation, and who because of his service was pre-aged, should be admitted to old age pension at least ten years before the ordinary civilian citizen. It was on that basis that the war veterans allowances were created, with the means test as it exists in old age pensions.
At the present time we are considering the whole question of war veterans allowances and reviewing the act in the light of the new old age security legislation to be put into force by next January, as announced by the government.


Gordon Graydon: I hope the minister's consideration will bring favourable results.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr.' Chairman, is any provision made in connection with war veterans allowances to unfortunate veterans who have suffered financial reverses? A case of this kind came to my attention the other day. The minister and his assistants have been most kind in looking over any cases I have presented to them, and I am wondering if they would look into the details of this one. I understand that the army benevolent fund is sometimes used for such purposes. Can the minister state whether there is any other way in which a veteran who has suffered financial reverses through no fault of his own, through unforeseen circumstances of one kind and another, could be helped?


Hugues Lapointe: It would be rather difficult
to answer a hypothetical question. There'

are other funds, such as the disablement fund, which could be used, and then I understand in some districts the administration is entrusted with certain funds which are used for such purposes. If the hon. member will let me have the particulars of the case I shall be glad to give him a definite answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on Friday,
June 15, the minister answered a question of mine with regard to the relationship between the War Veterans Allowance Act and the new old age pension legislation, and I quote from his answer as recorded on page 4136 of Hansard:
The matter referred to in the question asked on Tuesday by my hon. friend is being reviewed and considered at the present time.
I rise to express the hope that that review and consideration may result in a decision by the government to bring in an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act at the fall session of parliament. In my view it is urgent that it be done not later than that so that any changes made in the War Veterans Allowance Act can be made effective at the same time as the changes to be made with respect to old age pensions. As the minister knows, there are a number of problems that will arise out of this change affecting veterans, on the one hand, and so far as those from 65 to 69 years are concerned, affecting also the provinces.
It is not sufficient simply to say to a veteran that he has a choice between the War Veterans Allowance Act and the old age pension. In many cases the veteran feels that he would rather be under the War Veterans Allowance Act, particularly if he is between the ages of 65 and 69, because he feels there is a measure of entitlement under that act which he has earned through his war service and which does not exist under the other act. That is one aspect that I need not go into any further, but it does call for consideration. From the standpoint of the provinces, there is the feeling that veterans, who are a federal government responsibility, should not simply be pushed over on to them even if it is only to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost entailed.
There is also the matter of treatment and hospitalization rights which are enjoyed by veterans who qualify for the war veterans allowance. There may be cases where the monetary benefits would seem to be to the advantage of the veteran who transferred to the old age pension, but he will be in quite a dilemma if that means the loss of his treatment and hospitalization benefits. That is another aspect of the problem that will have to be gone into.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
Then there is the question of the older veteran with the younger wife. At the present time a married veteran who qualifies for the war veterans allowance gets the married rate regardless of the age of his wife. If a veteran were over 70 with a wife 63 or 64 years of age, or of any younger years, and he went over to the old age pension, there would be nothing for his wife, as matters now stand. These are problems that have to be looked at even if one only takes the position that the war veterans allowance recipient must not be allowed to suffer any loss by reason of the change that is taking place.
The minister assured me of that in the answer he gave on June 15, and I know that that is a matter of concern to the government, as it is to all of us. But I do emphasize the fact that there should not be any gap, that any changes to be made in the War Veterans Allowance Act should be made so that they can come into effect on January 1. If they are not dealt with now they should be dealt with in the fall session, without fail.
Having said that, may I point out that there are many who feel, as I do, that it is not sufficient just to make amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act that will protect the position of the veteran and keep it at what it now is. The fact of the matter is, and this is one of the exceptionally good things about the changes being made in our old age pension legislation, that after January 1 a great many Canadians, in fact some 72 per cent of all those 70 years of age and over will have an improvement in their financial position. Sixty per cent of those 70 years and over are not getting any old age pensions now and they will get $40 per month. Another 12 per cent of those 70 years of age and over are now getting old age pensions but at reduced rates and they will draw the full amount of $40 per month. Those who will benefit will include retired judges, retired civil servants and so on, because for all those 70 years of age and over the old age pension legislation will have no means test attached to it.
But if all these others are to gain from the changes being made, so should our burnt-out pensioners. Although there is no means test in the old age pension legislation for those 70 years and over, many of those receiving the burnt-out pension will be affected by the fact that there is a means test under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Unless some change is made many of these war veterans allowance recipients 70 years of age and over will not have their position improved by the enactment of the old age pension legislation.
Not only should there be the necessary amendments to make sure that the veteran does not lose his treatment or hospitalization
4534	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs rights; we should make sure that the older veteran with the younger wife does not suffer any loss and particular consideration should be given to making it possible for the burnt-out pensioner to be treated in the same way as most older Canadians will be treated after January 1.
I hope these matters will be looked into very closely. They call for some broad and thorough research into the War Veterans Allowance Act. I again stress the point that whatever amendments are made should be made in the fall session, without fail.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
547. Newfoundland special awards, $30,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Will the minister explain this item?


Mr. Lapoinie:: This is to cover certain awards made under legislation enacted by Newfoundland before union and for which there were no similar provisions in our legislation. We are carrying on the payment of these awards.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
549. Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $850,000.
Howard Charles Green: When this vote was first introduced about two years ago we were led to believe that it was more or less a trial measure and that eventually it would be covered by legislation. As the minister knows, there is considerable uncertainty in basing any measure on an annual vote rather than on legislation. Is it the intention to *continue this in the form of an annual vote or will legislation be brought down eventually?


Hugues Lapointe: At the present time it is the intention to continue it by an annual vote, and it is being increased this year compared with the previous year. I believe that a further supplementary estimate will be introduced to cover greater expenditure under this item.


Howard Charles Green: We have certain complaints that there has been adopted an administrative policy of cutting down on the amount of assistance given in each case in order to build up a reserve for that particular veteran which would be used in the event of any extraordinary need arising. Is it a fact that this new policy has been adopted by the department in administering this vote?


Hugues Lapointe: No, there is no set policy from that point of view. Individual cases are handled on their merits. There are some cases where it is known that greater need


for this additional fund will take place in the winter, and for that reason increased payments are made at that particular time of the year, but it is handled with the idea of serving the best interests of the veteran recipient.


Howard Charles Green: There is still a definite limit
on the total amount that any one veteran may receive in the course of a year?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, $120 is the limit for a single man.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
552. Gallantry awards-world war II, $18,000.
Howard Charles Green: This vote covers gallantry
awards for world war II. Is there any way in which similar payments can be made to the men who were decorated in world war I?


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister answers, may I recall the case of Captain Edward Bellew of Chase in Kamloops constituency, who was completely destitute? I drew the attention of the then minister, the late Ian Mackenzie, to the case, and through Walter Tucker he took advantage of a provision of the Pension Act for special meritorious service and granted a special award to Captain Bellew who distinguished himself during the first war. Therefore such a provision existed in the act before the second world war.


Howard Charles Green: The assistance to which the
hon. member for Temiscouata is referring Is, I think, under section 21 of the Pension Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: It is called the meritorious
pension. The point I am asking about is entirely different. It has to do with a payment that is made to those veterans who received awards for gallantry. Apparently the Canadian government pays all these men from world war II. What I am inquiring about is the position of the men who were decorated with the Victoria Cross, the distinguished conduct medal or the military medal during the first world war.


Hugues Lapointe: In the case of world war I
awards, those are paid by the United Kingdom government but no payment is made for the military medal. It was not done at the time, and it is not done by any British country. For world war II we have assumed payment of these awards since 1943.


Howard Charles Green: Has any consideration been
given to making payments to the men of the first war who received the military medal?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It has been a matter of
discussion, but none of the countries of the

commonwealth have assumed that responsibility. The British have for world war II but not for world war I, and that has been uniform throughout the commonwealth.


Howard Charles Green: There cannot be very many
men living who won the military medal in world war I. Can the parliamentary assistant say how much would be involved?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No. It is not a large sum individually but no estimate has been made of it because so far there has been no agreement to do it. I think there would be difficulties in breaking it up since all the awards were made by the British in world war I. To initiate -a different practice in different sections presents difficulties.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Surely we awarded the
military medal to these men because they won it and not because some person in another part of the commonwealth is making an award. Surely we awarded it because these men were the recipients of a very outstanding reward for valour, the military medal. There can be no difference in the valour of the men who won it in the first war, and I believe that the people of Canada would be more than willing to reward them for the winning of this decoration for valour and would wish it to be payable to every man. Surely it does not make any difference in a man's contribution to his country whether it was made between 1914 and 1918 or between 1939 and 1945. Talk about making flesh of one and fowl of the other! We are now practising that on the men of the armed forces. I do not think it would cost a great deal to remind the taxpayers that, according to the feeling of the government, they owe these men this recognition.
The award was not made to these men because of the fact that any other part of the British empire does or does not make this payment. Surely that was not the motive. The men in the last war won it for what they did in that war, and the men in the first war won it for the same reason. I think it should be applicable to all winners of the military medal who are Canadians and fought in the Canadian forces, irrespective of what may be done in any other part of the commonwealth. We should certainly stop making flesh of one and fowl of the other.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to ask the minister a question with respect to recipients of the Victoria Cross in the first world war. These men are paid in United Kingdom funds and they are Canadians. They have been in Canada for some years. They feel that they are being discriminated against because of the fact that, as I believe, we pay veterans
Supply-Veterans Affairs of the last war in Canadian funds. These men are paid in UK. funds and they lose a considerable amount of money.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If I may interject, the British award is paid at the rate of five Canadian dollars for the British pound, and as you know the British pound is not worth $5 now.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was talking to one of these men the other day and he made that complaint. As a matter of fact he made representations to me because he thought that perhaps I could bring it up. He said he was losing some amount each year which I have forgotten because of the fact that he is paid in U.K. funds.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Probably the gentleman to whom the hon. member refers earned his V.C. when he was serving with the British army and not with the Canadian army.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is true.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is a British award to British soldiers, and what I said a moment ago would not apply. But Canadians who won the Victoria Cross with the Canadian services are paid at the rate of five Canadian dollars for each British pound in the award.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Is there any way the situation of that man could be corrected and he could be paid on a par with others in Canada?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have nothing to do with awards to British soldiers.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: But he is still a Canadian who served in the British army. He was a Canadian to start with, and still is.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to know whether the amount in British money that goes with the award is deducted from the pension of any war veteran; and I will illustrate my point. Some years ago I was informed that at Christie Street hospital in Toronto there was a disabled veteran who had been awarded the Victoria Cross who was receiving a pension of $40 a month. He had to pay for his board $30, which left him $10 a month for pocket money. According to what I heard the pension commission took from his pension the amount of $40 that he was receiving at the time for his Victoria Cross, so there were four months for which he had no pocket money just because he was the recipient of the highest decoration within the commonwealth. I told the minister of the time, who was the late Ian Mackenzie, that I did not know if it was true but to check it and deny it if it was not true. He never denied it. Therefore I hope that when disabled men receive awards they will not be deducted from the amount of their pensions.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: The answer to my hon. friend's question is that any payment connected with the award of a medal is not considered as income with regard to either pension or war veterans allowance.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then that is an improvement over past policy.


Hugues Lapointe: We are improving all the time.


Howard Charles Green: What is the position with regard to the winner of a Distinguished Conduct Medal in both wars?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The gratuity is $100, with a corresponding addition for each bar.


Howard Charles Green: $100 a year?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No; it is a gratuity of $100, or 12J cents a day if he is a pensioner.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the same for the men of both wars?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It only came into effect in world war II.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad the minister says conditions in the department are improving all the time. I knew that; that was why I spoke as I did this afternoon.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister said the government keeps on improving; no doubt it is slow but sure. I would like him to explain why the veterans of the first war who won these awards have not been given these gratuities. Was it felt that the men who were given the awards in the first war for some reason or other did not merit these gratuities? I would like an explanation by the minister, to see whether or not we are improving.


Hugues Lapointe: My understanding is that at the time of the first war these medals were awarded by the British government and granted by His Majesty, and that the monetary award which accompanied them was paid and has continued to be paid by the British government. In 1943, during world war II, the responsibility of the British government was discharged in connection with these awards and we assumed the responsibility. That is where the difference comes in.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Did the British government make these awards of the D.C.M. and M.M. in the first war?


Hugues Lapointe: My statement was correct; awards in the first war were given by the British government. During the first war there was no monetary award attached to the Military Medal. That is the situation in all commonwealth countries, and that explains why there is a difference.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I knew about the difference; I knew these medals were given by the British government. Then this government came along and when they got a chance to really show their appreciation to these heroes they said we believe you are entitled to these awards for gallantry on behalf of the people of Canada, and we believe you are entitled to a monetary award in addition to the metal medal. We believe that is so as far as the second war is concerned, but not with respect to such awards in the first war. If the government believes that any Canadian winning these medals merits the monetary award, why should that not apply to the veterans of the first war as well? Would the minister say what might be done for the winners of the D.C.M. and M.M. in the first war as far as the monetary award is concerned, so they may be on an equal footing with the winners of those awards in the second war.


Hugues Lapointe: I have said that the winners of the D.C.M. do receive the award. As for the winners of the M.M., I must say I have not given the matter any consideration up to the present, but I will be very glad to consider my hon. friend's views.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
554. Last Post fund, $135,000.
Victor Quelch: Will the minister say whether or not the regulations governing the administration of the last post fund are subject to revision by the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Hugues Lapointe: My understanding is that the last post fund is a voluntary organization which has a working arrangement with the department. We make grants for the burial of indigent veterans, but the fund as such is an independent organization and its bylaws are not under the control of the department.


Mr. Johnston:: Is it not true that this fund is given a grant by the federal government?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes; I have said that we do make grants on the basis of the number of burials of indigent last post fund veterans looked after.


Charles Edward Johnston: There are some cases which perhaps do not receive as careful consideration from the fund as one might expect. I had one such case which I brought to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. It was settled satisfactorily, I think; at least I have heard nothing more about it. In this case a veteran who lived in Drumheller was out of employment. He was given a ride to Edmonton on a truck; while going into Edmonton there was an accident and he was killed. One of the businessmen in Drumheller, out of his own pocket, paid the

expenses of having the body returned to Drumheller. The widow, of course, was left penniless and had no means whatever of getting this body returned to Drumheller. This man paid that money out of his own pocket. Then when the veterans organization in Drumheller appealed to the fund to have the burial expenses-which, if I recall the figure rightly, amounted to about $110-paid for by the fund, they objected on the grounds that they had not been notified and that, had they been notified, the body would have been buried on the spot where it fell, something which was an absurdity. It fell on the highway. From the very fact that that body had been moved one foot from where it fell, I presume they take the view that the federal government, the Department of Veterans Affairs or anyone else had no right to suggest to them what they should or what they should not do.
I want to say that with the kind co-operation of the parliamentary assistant in bringing this matter to the attention of the proper authorities the thing was settled satisfactorily. But it seems to me that those in charge of the fund should be a little bit more considerate of those people whom they are serving; and that in such a case as that, it should never have been necessary for me to bring the matter to the attention of anyone in the federal government. The very fact that the federal government makes a contribution to that fund is in itself sufficient reason, I think, that they should exercise some power of suggestion at least over those in charge of this fund in order to see that it is properly administered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
556. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,606,624.
Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to register my annual protest in connection with the small holdings. I see the assistant to the minister smiling. I think possibly he knows what is coming. What I have to say is in connection with the regulation that a small holding must be two acres in extent. A great deal has been said today about members of this committee receiving telegrams about one thing or another in connection with veterans affairs. During the past few months I have had more complaints about this one regulation than with regard to anything concerning veterans affairs. I think it is a stupid regulation. I have said so before. The minister is smiling now. It is nothing to smile about.


Hugues Lapointe: I withdraw my smile.
80709-288g
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Frank Exton Lennard: For a veteran who is living on a small holding and working in an industrial plant, a small holding of two acres is too much for him to look after properly. Any man who has a half-acre out in a rural district will find that is plenty for him to care for properly. From the point of view of a kitchen garden, it will adequately supply him with all the vegetables he needs for his household. As to this idea that if we hit hard times the two acres will keep him, that is just nonsense; because when we hit hard times you cannot give vegetables away. There will therefore be no revenue derived from any small holding,
I just want to emphasize the fact that the regulation is a great deterrent, in my opinion, to veterans taking advantage of the small holdings section; because in many cases they cannot get a suitable holding of that extent and look after it adequately. I think the department knows that. I think the parliamentary assistant to the minister knows it, judging by his expression at the moment; and the officials have known it for some time. It was a regulation that was adopted some time ago, and I think that the former deputy minister more or less realized that it was a stupid regulation. I do not know why the department still continues to keep it in force.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a suggestion and also a vigorous complaint under this heading of Veterans Land Act administration. We all realize that settlement under the Veterans Land Act has been of great benefit to large numbers of veterans in Canada, and it has been of benefit to a considerable number in my constituency, particularly under the small holdings section. But I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that while the $6,000 loan was generally satisfactory when the act was adopted, it is now insufficient owing to the rising cost of living or the decreasing value of the dollar, whichever you might call it, for the settlement of veterans in small holdings in some cases and definitely so in connection with small farms or full-scale farming.
I have had a good number of complaints from veterans in my constituency and veterans in surrounding constituencies. I happen to have here a resolution that was adopted by the veteran settlers of Lakeview Heights Veterans Land Act project in the Okanagan valley, and I just want to read one paragraph of it because in that one paragraph I think they make a good case. I might say that the whole presentation on the part of these veterans is carefully prepared and is

Supply-Veterans Affairs substantiated with facts. In this brief they say this, and I shall simply read one paragraph:
The problem of the veteran settler has been progressively increased by the shrinking value of the country's medium of exchange. The present cost of construction, according to figures appearing in the 1950 report of the society of residential appraisers, as at 15 October, 1950, is 65-5 per cent higher than in 1946, and 135 per cent higher than in 1939. Reference to V.L.A. figures published in the Vancouver Province January 18, 1951, shows that in the lower mainland of B.C. there has been a total of 535 homes built under the V.L.A. in the five years, 1946-1950. These have been built at an average cost of $7,009 . . . Building costs are continuing to rise. The cost of building in 1946, according to the 1950 report of the society of residential appraisers, was $6'32 per square foot; in 1950 it was $8.75; and quotations from local contractors are now in excess of $9 per square foot.
That is a situation which is growing worse from year to year. I think the present $6,000 loan is insufficient. I would urge the minister to give consideration to the serious situation existing with regard to small-holdings developments, owing to the lack with regard to the amount of the basic loan.
In addition to that, I just want to have a word or two to say about the Veterans Land Act administration as it applies to my constituency. I usually have happy relations with all the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and, like the minister, I was somewhat indignant when I heard the hon. member for Temiscouata speak this afternoon. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not make a complaint or support a complaint unless I think it is founded on sound grounds. In Kootenay West for some years there was a regional office established in Nelson which served the east and west Kootenay district. It was under Mr. Dodding who died two or three years ago. He did good work indeed. He had a good knowlege of the district, was well liked by the veterans, and made every possible effort to settle men on farms in the area and on small holdings. The veterans of the district are extremely sorry that he suddenly passed away. Since Mr. Dodding's decease the Veterans Land Act administration have seen fit to remove the administration from Nelson and put it under the supervision of the supervisor in Kelowna. Mind you, Kelowna is in a different type of country, and they are dealing with problems not of the same nature as we have them in the Kootenays.
Owing to the economy drive which the government initiated last fall I understand that the Department of Veterans Affairs, like other departments, have been asked to reduce staff.	In Kootenay West we had
three field men covering the whole area- all of them good men. Finally the superintendent, on the recommendation of the
[Mr. Herrldge.l
supervisor at Kelowna-I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it was entirely without bias- dismissed Mr. Green, the senior veteran in the government's employ, with six years in the department and nearly thirty years' residence on the north shore of Willow Point, and a man who had given excellent service to the veterans of the district. So indignant were the veterans of Kootenay West at his dismissal that every branch of Kootenay West has written me about it, and some 50 other veterans. Here was a man who was giving excellent service. He was a veteran of two wars, and he was resident in the district and a farmer and had six years' service with the department itself.
I want to point this out to the minister. On occasion after occasion decisions made by Mr. Green in his office in each of the Kootenays were vetoed by someone higher up and then later, on re-investigation, were O.K.'d. I remember last year Mr. Baldwin, who was for a term acting district superintendent of Vancouver, came into the district because of complaints from veterans, men who wanted to buy a small holding on the north shore near Willow Point, an excellent buy, a five-room modern house, four acres of ground, water piped in all directions, fertile land, for $4,000 cash. The regional office in Kelowna turned the offer down. Mr. Baldwin, the acting superintendent at that time, came into the district and looked at the house for only a few minutes, and wrote to me to say that any veteran who wished to purchase the place could do so because the department considered it a satisfactory buy. But the veteran who was interested in the place had been waiting for four months, and by that time he had left the district in order to find other suitable accommodation.
I suggest that the minister give some consideration to this, because I believe it is a justifiable complaint. We have a great opportunity for small holdings in our district, particularly for the men working in the plants of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
As a result of the dismissal of this senior official we have two men left, excellent -men, Mr. Mackie doing the east Kootenay area and Mr. Cooper the west Kootenay area. Both of these men are doing the best they can. Both are overworked because of the distance. These two men have to serve a population of 70,000 people; that is to say, the veterans in a population of 70,000 people. They are serving a country of 20,000 square miles in area, and they are working in a district that produces the greatest wealth per capita of any district in Canada, according to the publication "Business Week".

I am making a plea for a little more activity on the part of the Veterans Land Act administration so far as the Kootenays are concerned. There are hundreds of men in my district who would welcome a small holding if they could obtain one. One of the big handicaps has been this two acres or nothing business. It is difficult in our district to get two acres of cultivable land close to Nelson. Surely half an acre is sufficient for any man working in an industrial plant where he is making his wages and is using his small holding as a place to grow some vegetables, keep a few chickens, a pig and so on. I ask the minister and his department to give consideration to that. I do urge that the minister and the officials of the Veterans Land Act administration review the situation. I am not blaming altogether those in charge at Kelowna. They have very serious problems to attend to. They have some difficult conditions, and they have to motor over from Kelowna some hundreds of miles into our valley to service applicants, and so on.
Under the present arrangements the Nelson office is open for four hours every week on Saturday afternoon, I think, for veterans who wish to make application for small holdings or full-time farming or for veterans who wish to make their payments. Imagine a man driving from Edgewood to Nakusp to Nelson, a distance of 165 miles, to see a person who is in an office that is open for four hours. If he has a flat tire be misses his appointment. That is not good enough service for such a great wealth-producing area as that.
I may say that when I return home I speak to a lot of organizations,' such as boards of trade, Rotary clubs, Kiwanis clubs, veterans and labour organizations and so on. I am going to do all I can to mobilize public opinion in Kootenay West to see that we get a better deal so far as veterans settlement is concerned.
Before concluding I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that I have a report here addressed to the minister from Mr. Baldwin at the time that he was acting superintendent-at least, I have a copy of the report. He deals with construction in the Kootenays. For this whole area he says:
Construction supervisor Nield has supervised construction of seven new houses in both Kootenays during 1950. In 1949 the total was also seven.
When the regulations were changed from half an acre to a minimum of two acres to the value of $500 I have personal knowledge of 245 applications that could not be processed because of the change in those regulations. If the regulations were changed there
Supply-Veterans Affairs are dozens and dozens of men who would wish to settle under the small-holdings sections. We have some excellent small holdings settlements there, but there is a great demand from others who have not had the opportunity up to date. As far as the interior of British Columbia is concerned, I would urge the minister's department to give it very serious consideration. I do ask the minister personally to look into what I consider-not only myself personally, but all the veterans organizations of Kootenay West and a large number of responsible citizens-the gross injustice that was done a veteran of two wars who had served the country and the veterans of the district so well.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to endorse the request which has been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West that there be a regional office opened in the city of Nelson or that some better arrangement be made for looking after the veterans in the Kootenay district. It so happens that I was born in the Kootenay district and I know the country well. Everything that he has said is absolutely correct. It is quite inefficient to try to supervise that district from the Okanagan district which is several hundred miles away across two mountain ranges. To get from Kelowna to Nelson you have to cross those ranges. The hon. member for Kootenay West has made a very reasonable presentation of this situation and I would ask that the minister have the whole question investigated.


Hugues Lapointe: I will be very glad to take the matter up with the director.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In saying a few words on small holdings I should like to follow up what the hon. member for Wentworth said. In my riding many more veterans would have built houses provided they could have built within the town limit and on smaller holdings. To buy two acres adjacent to a town or village costs as much as a smaller holding would, or a quarter or half acre would cost him within the town. Therefore many veterans have not built their own houses. They are still renting houses or looking to the government to help them.
I think the greatest asset in the country is to have people who own their own homes. When a man owns his own home he feels he has a stake in the country that he has not in any other way. Every dollar he spends on that house is his. If he spends it on a rented house or in the house that he happens to occupy he looks upon it as a lost dollar. I think it is a big mistake to try to hold veterans down to try to build a house on two acres. I know some veterans

Supply-Veterans Affairs in my riding who have built on two acres of land. They have had to go out of the town half a mile or a mile, and pay more money for their two acres than a nice little lot in town, perhaps a quarter or half acre, would have cost. Everyone who knows anything about land knows that a quarter of an acre, with a proper home built on it, with a good lawn and garden, requires plenty of care. I doubt whether the minister or the parliamentary assistant or many of the officials in the department know what two acres of land is. If one gave them a few sticks and a hammer and told them to go out into a ten-acre or twenty-acre field and stake out two acres they would not be within 25 per cent of being correct.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I will take that bet.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will take that for as
much as you like, because I have seen some of them who did not know what it was all about.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Maybe they were not born
on a farm; I was.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is the situation. Anyone who knows about hoeing or looking after a garden knows that a veteran cannot work in a plant or in a town and drive a mile or two miles in and out, and also look after two acres of land. Therefore most veterans' homes that are built on two acres of land, instead of being surrounded by vegetables, are surrounded by weeds, which is detrimental to the farmers who are living alongside. I suggest that the parliamentary assistant might give us his opinion in the matter, and maybe we can get him to bend a little.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: This brings up once again the question which has run through this legislation from the beginning. Small holdings were designed to be ancillary to the Veterans Land Act, and as such when you get below the prescribed area you are getting into what is in effect urban housing, rather than land settlement.
The decision that may have to be taken some day-certainly it has been reviewed over and over again in the light of representations which come from smaller industrial cities particularly, and some of the cities in those areas which are heavily industrialized-is whether or not the department is going into the business of urban housing. That is what it amounts to, when you reduce it below the given amount.
Until now the decision has always been that the justification for small holdings was the relationship to land settlement. In those areas, the inception of the idea was to get


certain groups of veterans away from congested areas in cities into larger areas where they could get homes comparable to those available in cities but at very much lower prices, and at the same time to give them a backlog of security through the productivity of their land.
Owing to the fact that the scheme came into being at a time when everybody everywhere was gravely concerned with the question of housing itself, this question has cut across all decisions. Back in September, I believe it was, of 1946, when the government began, under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to build rental housing restricted to veterans in various urban areas throughout the country, the decision was taken that to make the differential more clearly defined between them, those having small holdings would have to move out to larger areas, and get larger areas of land.
Up to the present time there has been no change. The department is continuing to settle on uncompleted projects veterans on half-acre holdings, and veterans with 50 per cent pensionable disability or more are still eligible for half-acre settlement. But there is no proposed change at the present time. I think this question which keeps coming up from time to time may ultimately have to be settled along the lines I have indicated.


Percy Ellis Wright: How many are still under the British family scheme who are continuing to make payments, and what is the amount of the indebtedness still owing under that scheme?


Hugues Lapointe: As at March 31, 1951, there remained 463 active accounts for British families.


Percy Ellis Wright: How much was owing on those?


Hugues Lapointe: As of March 31, 1951, it was $601,195.36.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
560. To provide for the reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler under the Soldier Settlement Act, in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property and his ability to repay his indebtedness to the director, under regulations approved by the governor in council, $150,000.
Robert Fair: This item of $150,000 in the estimates is to help old soldier settlers to pay off debts. Would the minister tell us what the amount of their indebtedness is at present, and how many settlers are still holding contracts?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: There are 1,173 active
accounts as at March 31.


Robert Fair: And the total indebtedness?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: It is $1,190,185.


Robert Fair: This does not seem to be reducing very fast. I wonder if the minister and his department would consider bringing in an item to wipe it out altogether. It amounts to about $1,000 for each person involved. Perhaps that could be wiped out when the estimates are before us next year.
As the minister knows, this has been hanging fire for thirty-two years. Many of those veterans are over eighty years of age, and the average age is about sixty. Many of them are not able to work. I make one more plea on this occasion to have the minister bring in an item in the next estimates to take care of the whole amount, and clean off this injustice.


Hugues Lapointe: I am well aware of the hon. member's views in the matter. I know that for some time the hon. member has advocated just what he has raised tonight. As he suggests, there is a considerable reduction but the fact is that 320 accounts were closed out this year. The number of active soldier settler accounts as of April 1, 1950, was 1,493 and that has been reduced to 1,173. Through the use of this fund we are gradually wiping out the accounts, and the committee should also take into consideration the fact that various other factors apply such as the age of the settler, the productivity of the land and so on.


Robert Fair: Was all the $150,000 voted last year used up?


Hugues Lapointe: Not all. There remains of last year's vote exactly 48 cents, which will be spent this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
563. Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners, $6,412,500.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister outline the present situation with regard to university and vocational training including that offered to merchant seamen?


Hugues Lapointe: Does my hon. friend want to have the number of active trainees?


Howard Charles Green: I notice that university training is being reduced from $9,690,000 to $4,075,000, which I suppose is due to the fact that a large number of veterans have graduated. The vocational training vote is reduced from $1,400,000 to $525,000, while the awaiting returns allowances are reduced from $900,000 to $700,000. Just what is the picture?
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Hugues Lapointe: The estimated number of veterans who will be receiving training under this item as of September, 1951, the beginning of the school year, is 2,600 taking undergraduate university training, 1,200 taking post-graduate university training; and 475 taking vocational training. The number has been decreasing gradually, which accounts for the reduced vote.


Howard Charles Green: How many merchant seamen are getting vocational training now?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I have not a division as between former servicemen and former merchant seamen. I could obtain it and give it to my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any change in the policy of the government with regard to vocational training for men of the merchant navy? Hitherto it has been restricted to those who had signed a manning pool agreement and there was also an age limit.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: The age limit has been raised, but the other restriction mentioned still remains.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister consider
reviewing these regulations? I believe they have been too severe with the result that only a small number of men have been able to qualify. A return was tabled on April 14, 1951, showing that of 1,141 applications by merchant seamen for vocational training only 699 were accepted and 442 were refused. In addition there would be quite a number of men who would not bother to apply because of the stringent regulations. I have always felt that the Department of Veterans Affairs was willing to go much further in this regard than the Department of Transport. I do hope it will be possible to review these regulations and as a result make it possible for a larger number of these men to have vocational training.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be glad to review
this matter, but I would point out to my hon. friend that in connection with that type of training we look after the training end, but the qualifications end is the responsibility of the Department of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
650. To provide financial assistance after the thirty-first of May, 1951, in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council, to unemployable veterans who are in receipt of pension under the Pension Act for a disability which is a major factor contributing to their unemployability, $2,000,000.
Hugues Lapointe: In order to comply with
the recommendations of the select committee on veterans affairs with regard to this item

Pension Act
I would move to withdraw the item from the committee. I shall reintroduce it later when we go into supply with the amendments recommended by the committee.
Item withdrawn.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



VETERANS BENEFIT ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 287, respecting benefits to members of the Canadian forces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 288, to amend the Pension Act and change the title thereof-Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Title changed.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, in reporting this bill back to the house the special committee on veterans affairs made two recommendations which are as follows:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing amendments to clauses 7, 9, 11 and 18 of the said Bill No. 288, to advance the date line of May 1, 1950, wherever it appears in these clauses, to May 1, 1951.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I have the amendments here.


Howard Charles Green: There is a further recommendation reading:
Your committee also recommends that the government give consideration to further amending the said Bill No. 288 by the addition of a clause amending subsection 4 of section 29 of the Pension Act by the deletion of the words "or two" in the third line thereof.
Can the minister or the parliamentary assistant tell us whether these recommendations have been accepted by the government?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I have them here.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: The recommendations have been accepted, and I am going to ask one of my colleagues to move the amendments when the clauses are called.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
[Mr. Lapointe.)
Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is a clause to be inserted between sections 6 and 7.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That the following clause be inserted between clauses 6 and 7:
"Subsection 4 of section 29 of the said act as enacted by section 19 of chapter 62 of the statutes of 1946 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
* (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of this section, any addition to pension granted under subsection 1 of section 26 of this act to a member of the forces who is blind shall be paid during the time he is an in-patient under treatment or care from the department.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 7-Pension in discretion of commission in certain cases.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is an amendment to this clause. Following the recommendation of the committee it is proposed to advance the date line from May 1, 1950, to May 1, 1951. That is in line 17 on page 4 of the bill.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That the words "the first day of May, 1951", be substituted for the words "the first day of May, 1950" in line 6 of clause 7.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is the sixth line of the clause and the seventeenth line of the page.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Proviso.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is a similar amendment to section 9.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That the words "the first day of May, 1951", be substituted for the words "the first day of May, 1950" where they appear in line 22 on page 5.


Howard Charles Green: There is also a date in the eighth line on the same page. Is that not being changed as well?


Louis-René Beaudoin: As a matter of fact, may I point out that the amendment reads "where they appear in lines 8 and 24".


Howard Charles Green: You did not mention line 8.
The Depuly Chairman:	That is quite so.
I was handed by inadvertence the amendment to a different clause.


Howard Charles Green: It does appear twice.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Proviso.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have the date line here again as in clauses 7 and 9. The change

has to be made from May 1, 1950, to May 1, 1951, in lines 10 and 21 on page 6.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That the words "the first day of May, 1951", be substituted for the words "the first day of May, 1950" where they appear in lines 10 and 21 of clause 11.


Howard Charles Green: The date appears in three places in that section.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Lines 10, 20 and 21.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would it be possible to substitute the words "wherever they appear in clause 11"?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is correct; change the words "the first day of May, 1950" to "the first day of May, 1951" wherever they appear in clause 11.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 12 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-When certain pensions not payable in respect of children.
Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is the same amendment as made in clauses 7, 8 and 11, to change "the first day of May, 1950", in line 19 on page 8 to "the first day of May, 1951".


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That the words "the first day of May, 1951" be substituted for the words "the first day of May, 1950" in lines 8 and 9 of clause 18.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 286, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 352, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Veterans Affairs


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 389, to amend the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Marketing service-
34.	Dairy products, $716,839.
Mr. Charlton:: Could the minister give us some information as to the present production of butter and cheese as compared with last year?


Mr. Gardiner:: During the last few weeks butter production has been up slightly week by week as compared with a year ago, but the production of butter for the period from the beginning of the year to the present time is down. The departmental officials estimate that if production continues as it has gone for the last few weeks it will be probably a little higher than the production a year ago.


John Alpheus Charlton: How about cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: Cheese production has been running along somewhat lower than what it was a year ago, but the production was not high either last year or this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
37. Livestock and livestock products, $1,283,653.
John Alpheus Charlton: What is the chance of getting a contract with or selling some bacon to Great Britain this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have an understanding
with Britain that if there is any bacon available at the price offered, it will be purchased for them. But at the present time there is no indication that there will be any bacon available. The price is about ten cents higher than the British price offered would permit of our paying.


John Alpheus Charlton: The government subsidy
brings the amount up quite considerably. Has the British price not been raised since?
4544

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: Not to our knowledge. No
offers have been made of any higher price; not to my knowledge. It is just possible that if we had any to sell and if we were to attempt to sell it to the British, we might be able to get a higher price than they offered some time ago. But we are consuming the pork as fast as it is being produced and put on the market.


John Alpheus Charlton: How much pork has been
exported to the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: Very little. It is a negligible quantity. It is only an amount which goes across for certain purposes. We get just about as much back for other purposes. On balance, we might say that there is nothing at all passed over to the United States.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister tell the
committee why it is that we are not producing any more pork than we are producing? Surely in a country like Canada we should be able to produce pork for export. What would be the reason why we are not producing as much as we were producing in 1944?


James Garfield Gardiner: The producers in Ontario,
for example, are producing as much as they ever produced. They are producing as much in Quebec, generally speaking, as they ever did. The place where the pork is not being produced is largely in the prairie provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Manitoba is down as well. The only time when we were producing any considerable amount more than we are producing now was during the wartime, in the middle of the war. At that time we were not able to sell our grain. We wanted cash, so we fed even wheat to hogs to get cash. For example, in Saskatchewan, where there has been as big a drop as anywhere, we were producing about four times as many hogs in the middle of the war as we are producing now. The only reason for that is the fact that we prefer to produce grain on the prairies and to sell it rather than to feed it, if we can sell the grain. We are selling all the grain at the present time. There is no difficulty, as there was during the war, to find a market for the grain. It is being sold; and we are selling it rather than feeding it. That is a choice we make out there under these circumstances. I do not know that there is much that could be done about it.


John Horne Blackmore: Are we selling the frozen wheat to greater advantage than, we could sell it through hogs?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think so. On my
own farm I am feeding frozen wheat; but many of my neighbours are not doing so. 
In western Canada we seem to prefer to sell feed rather than to feed hogs under these circumstances; and that is what we are doing. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong. The farmer himself makes that choice. Some farmers go on feeding hogs and others do not.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there any possibility
that the prices for hogs are not sufficiently high or that there is not sufficient stability in the price?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is. I do not think
there is any question about that. Hogs have been selling at a much higher price than anyone ever anticipated. If you start to figure what you could make by feeding wheat to hogs, you will find that you can get considerably more by feeding it to hogs. But our people prefer to sell the wheat at the present time. They make a fairly good return out of it and they are selling it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A few minutes ago the
minister mentioned this frozen wheat or low-grade wheat. Is the situation not that the price of the wheat has been higher, relatively, than the price of barley, with the result that anybody in the hog business would much prefer to buy barley-and did so- and feed it to hogs than to buy wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is true. As long as
there is barley available, the farmer prefers to feed barley. But there is not a sufficient volume of barley to take care of all the requirements and they feed wheat.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that is probably going to be one of the difficulties in getting rid of this wheat. The food value per pound in relation to the price you have to pay for it is not as great as the food value per pound of barley for which you pay a lower price. It would seem to me that if we are going to get rid of this low grade wheat through feeding it to hogs it is probably going to be necessary that the price of it be brought down so that it will be more comparable with the price of barley.


James Garfield Gardiner: The difficulty of that is that the low grade wheat is selling higher proportionately than the high grade wheat at the present time. The present indications are that a higher final payment will be made on some of the lower grades than will be made on the higher grades. There is quite a demand for feed, and that is one of the reasons why they sell it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister this question. Is it not the situation that we have a large amount of this low-grade wheat in elevators and that, as a matter of fact, it is to a considerable extent

clogging what you might call our wheat handling facilities at the present time?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. I wonder if the minister would just answer that question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the hon. member is rather outside my department; but nevertheless it is the old question. The bidding for the low grade wheat is high and I do not know how you are going to get the price down while other people are bidding the price up. They are offering more for the wheat in order to get it.


Victor Quelch: Who wants to get the price down?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not
answered my question at all. Is it not the situation that our handling facilities-our elevators and so on-are actually to quite an extent clogged with this wheat because people have not bought it at the prices it is being sold at?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that there is a considerable amount of wheat in elevators largely because they have not been able to get cars to ship it out. We have had members of the house getting up here from time to time bringing that fact to the attention of the government. But it can be sold if it can be shipped.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I hope the minister is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will proceed with the second reading of three bills: Bill No. 395, to provide for old age assistance; Bill No. 396, to provide for allowances for blind persons; and Bill No. 397, to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927. Then we will go into supply and consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Resources and Development and the Department of the Secretary of State.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask the house leader if it is the intention to sit beyond six o'clock tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes; until eleven o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Minister of Labour agree to that unfair labour practice?


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if that agenda will be taken up in the order indicated?
Supply


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
535.	Departmental administration, $2,208,070. District services-
536.	Administration, $2,672,171.
537.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,288,364. Treatment services-
538.	Operation of hospitals and administration, $36,249,295.
539.	Medical research and education, $375,000.
540.	Hospital construction, improvements, new equipment and acquisition of land, $4,217,900.
Prosthetic services-
541.	Supply, manufacture and administration, $1,018,130.
Canadian pension commission-
542.	Administration expenses, including salaries for the chairman of the Canadian pension commission at $2,000 per annum and the deputy chairman and each of the other commissioners, including ad hoc commissioners, at $1,000 per annum additional to the salaries provided under chap. 157, R.S., 1927, as amended, $2,144,434.
543.	Veterans bureau, $490,177.
544.	War Veterans' Allowance Board-administration, $187,268.
545.	Veterans' insurance, $88,367.
Pensions and other benefits-
546.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act, $97,105,000.
547.	Newfoundland special awards, $30,000.
548.	War veterans allowances, $26,585,000.
549.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances), $850,000.
550.	Unemployment assistance, $50,000.
551.	Hospital and other allowances, $3,100,000.
552.	Gallantry awards-world war II, $18,000.
Miscellaneous payments-
553.	Employers liability compensation, $180,000.
554.	Last Post fund, $135,000.
555.	Grant to Canadian legion, $9,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
556.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,606,624.
557.	To provide for the upkeep of property, Veterans Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $80,000.
558.	To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 35 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, as amended, and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an
80709-289 h
[Stage Direction]
Supply
agreement with the Minister of Resources and Development under section 35 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, as amended, $1,100,000.
559.	To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 35A of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, as amended, $300,000.
560.	To provide for the reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler under the Soldier Settlement Act, in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property and his ability to repay his indebtedness to the director, under regulations approved by the governor in council, $150,000.
561. To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans Land Act to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $15,000.
562. To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council in each case, for the completion of necessary remedial work to houses and services constructed under the 1945 building program, $34,400.
Terminable services-
563.	Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners, $6,412,500.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
570.	To provide for protection of security-soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $25,000.
571.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment, refund of surplus to veterans (section 19); and for protection of security under the Veterans Land Act, $23,685,000.

[Stage Direction]
33.	Agricultural economics, $510,433.
34.	Dairy products, $716,839.
35.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, and grants, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $535,707.
36.	Fruit, vegetables and maple products, and honey, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian Horticultural Council, $1,082,525,
37.	Livestock and livestock products, $1,283,653.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday. June 23, 1951